Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

The ideal RFA process

Please have a read of this. It's embarrassing that my home project can't get its act together and put something like this together. Majorly talk 19:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Ideas like that can be created very simply when it is one person writing it. When it is 200 people bringing their preconceived notions of what RfA should be and history with other users to the table agreement is much more difficult. An example would be a cake: a single person making a carrot cake would be easy; when you are fitting 200 people into the kitchen fighting over the ingredients it gets more difficult, especially when half the cooks aren't talking to the other half and wanted to make a chocolate cake anyway. Ironholds (talk) 19:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty half-baked, IMO. Who's to say what's "irrational"? You? Me? (Ideally me, of course.) People are fixated with this voting idea, and just aren't thinking outside the box. For instance, just off the top of my head, why not a system along the lines of the one that eBay uses to rank buyers and sellers? That might have the added advantage of giving some substance to barnstars, as well. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

A++++++ editing, fast reverting, would buy again. –xeno (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much like that, yes. And then when you get to 250, or whatever, you're automatically an admin. And of course, if your ranking drops below the promotion level because of negative feedback, then you're also automatically desysoped. How easy is that? :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 19:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

That would certainly make it easy for the quid pro quo groups, one more thing besides barnstars and GAs they can exchange!--Wehwalt (talk) 19:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Why pretend that's not happening already? --Malleus Fatuorum 19:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The problem with the eBay rating system is that it kind of encourages revenge. One guy waits until the other posts feedback first, and if it is negative, he posts negative feedback as well, regardless of their performance. Something like that could also happen on Wikipedia. Useight (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Why pretend that's not happening already? --Malleus Fatuorum 19:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Touché. Useight (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Negative feedback is not encouraged on eBay. Unlike Wikipedia, where people oppose right left and centre over things ranging from making a typo in the nomination, to tagging a page for deletion incorrectly three years ago, eBay will suggest all sort of alternative routes to go instead of giving negative feedback. I do quite a bit of shopping on eBay and I've yet to see someone with less than 97% positive feedback. Majorly talk 19:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

In fact, sellers can't even give negative feedback. All they can do is either to give positive, or none. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Really? It's been a long time since I've used eBay. Useight (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I just checked something and saw someone with 93% positive, but they only had 46 comments altogether so it was rather skewed. I reckon once it goes below a certain level, they get kicked off. Majorly talk 19:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure whether they get kicked off or not, but although sellers can't leave negative feedback, they do have a button to report problems they've had with the seller to eBay. That's perhaps where the AdminWatch initiative could also be incorporated. Joined-up thinking anyone? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Lately, I have read many of your comments, Majorly, criticising everything possible regarding opposes both on RfAs and here. Also, I have read this blog post. Thinking about both your comments and that blog post, I started asking myself the following questions: What is the thing administrators must have? Right, trust. Trust, however is a merely subjective thing. Yes, it is. It simply can not be measured objectively. If one says “I do not trust ...” this has to accepted — completely and absolutely regardless whether you agree. And even if you start discounting every vote you do not agree with — what is the point in doing this? Well, the candidate becomes an admin then, fine. An admin without the trust of the community. Great. Is it that what you try to achieve? Obviously it is. Simply, it's inevitable if we start doing this. Though I know no one will care anyway, I want to emphasise what I've written above already: Trust is subjective. This matter of fact should be accepted in the end. This badgering of persons which are not of the same mind is unbearable. It's unbearable. And now, go ahead, start claiming that me voicing my opinion has to stop. User:WJBscribe said it once at this talk page: Our RfA system is okay. It works. No need to change it. Wikipedia exists since years with this system and until now it [i.e. Wikipedia] did not go down. Strange, isn't it? And I also say it works: Candidates who have the trust of the community are promoted, those who haven't are not. Finally, we have excellent bureaucrats making excellent decisions. There's nothing wrong — the only thing that's wrong is that badgering of persons which are not of the same mind. — Aitias // discussion 20:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem, as I see it, is that people are not thinking on an ambitious enough scale. RfA would be OK in its present form if there was a practical method for reversing its decisions. But there isn't, so it can't be fixed in isolation. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you please elaborate a bit on this? I don't quite understand. — Aitias // discussion 20:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Aitias: I'm afraid you are overestimating the weight of one hundred regular voters at RFA. One hundred is not the community. NVO (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Everyone who wants to voice their opinion is entitled to it. If they do not, that's their problem, isn't it? — Aitias // discussion 20:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

How long were you here in wikipedia before you knew that there was such a thing as RfA? It certainly weasn't something that I stumbled across for a good long time. And that's part of the problem, the community is not involved, just a relative handful of RfA regulars. Compounded by the fact that the ludicrous canvassing policy demands that the election be held in almost total secrecy. Not healthy. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting question actually. I first came across an RFA quite early on - about a month after I joined. My first vote was *gasp* an oppose. Lol. How things have changed.

Back to the point, that's yet another problem with enwiki RFA. We'll never get the community's true opinion. On Meta-wiki, when there is an RFA, pretty much every active editor votes (and nearly all RFAs pass unanimously). If only it was like that here. Majorly talk 20:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You clearly have not read my comments properly, Aitias. There are only certain aspects of oppose votes I dislike. I have opposed people many, many times. I have not, at any point ever, said that opposes are not allowed. What I have said is they should not be thrown around willy-nilly. This is a person we are talking about, not some object. Candidates have feelings too you know. While they may be completely dreadful as a candidate, it's not an excuse to make a vicious attack on their character. This is what I hate about opposes. They are negative. They bring down the atmosphere. This is why oppose so rarely, and why I dislike them so much.

You're clearly either misrepresenting my comments, or not understanding what I'm saying Aitias. I've said the same thing as WJBscribe. The process is fine. It's the people that participate in it that bring it down. You don't have to oppose everyone right left and centre, do you? It's your own choice. Just like it's my choice to ask why you do that. Are you a negative person in real life Aitias? I hope not. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If you don't like being badgered don't vote. Or even better - vote with damn good reasoning. If your reasoning is rock solid, no one will need to question you. You'll notice how I don't question every opposer - only the ones that lack solid reasoning. "I don't trust him" simply tells no one anything, and is not the way to help build consensus. Sorry if you can't see that.

The only thing wrong with the RFA process is the people participating in it. It's ultimately the opposers that decide if the candidate passes or fails, because an oppose is worth four supports. It's quite unfortunate that many of their rationales don't have the slightest relevance to being a Wikipedia admin. I know you like following policy to the letter, and expecting every admin to do the same, but the rest of us are here to write an encyclopedia. That's all that matters on Wikipedia. If you'd like to join us, you're very welcome. Majorly talk 20:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll leave you two to your argument. I had no great hopes of opening up anyone's mind to possible alternatives anyway. This is wikipedia after all. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 20:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the main way to go seems to be a more effective desysopping process. Get rid of the 'an admin is for life, not just for christmas' mentality and people will stop getting shitscared at the smallest issue. Ironholds (talk) 20:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

That would certainly be a very significant beginning. If adminship is no big deal, then non-adminship is also no big deal. Strange how so many seem to be unable to understand, or choose to ignore, the corollary. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

@Majorly: “You'll notice how I don't question every opposer - only the ones that lack solid reasoning.” Are you the one to judge that?

“This is a person we are talking about, not some object. Candidates have feelings too you know.” Oh, really? What about re-reading the last paragraph of your message then? Nothing but offending. — Aitias // discussion 20:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, is there a problem with me expressing my opinion on what I think of someone's rationale? Or are you opposed to any kind of discussion on RFA? RFA does not stop untrustworthy people passing, likewise it does stop trustworthy people passing - thanks to people like you opposing good candidates. If you're opposing to try and stop "untrustworthy" people passing, you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater. It's not working. Majorly talk 20:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

EVula's ideal RfA process

User:EVula/opining/RfA overhaul

In short: same as it is now, but with the above process tacked on so we can remove sysops easily. I honestly believe that would eliminate the hesitation that a lot of participants have with giving out the sysop flag. Shouldn't be as easy as rollback, but it should be easier than it currently is. EVula // talk // ☯ // 08:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Being that it's 1:30AM here and I'm too tired to think straight, this looks like a good write-up of the ocassionally-brought-up "let's simplify desysopping". I, too, think there should be an easier and/or quicker way to desysop, but it shouldn't be too easy. I don't think adminship should just come on and off like a pair of socks. Perhaps some limit should also be imposed that a particular candidate can't be "RFDA'd" more than once every X number of months. Perhaps the case should go to ArbCom if the bureaucrats decide there is no consensus. I don't know. I'm sure this will be dissected in much greater detail in the coming hours by people who aren't about to dive into bed. That's all I have for now, except I'd like to add that your final point at the bottom was a nice touch. Useight (talk) 08:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's start by considering if it's right that desysoping should be so much more difficult than sysoping. --Malleus Fatuorum 08:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)) Well, probably the simplest way to go about it. Should be a required number of people needed to file a request (say five) to avoid random nuts from nominating admins they don't like. Agree with Useight that there should be a hard limit on the RfDAs that can be filed on an admin (say one every six months). I'm hesitant though to make it a direct clone of RfA though. Maybe require proof of previous attempts to correct or note the admin's inappropriate behavior (RfC/U, ANI cases, etc.) as a further barrier to frivolous noms. Anyhow, enough of my tired musings. Interested to hear in what others have to say about this. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 08:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

An RfA doesn't require five nominators, so why should a request for desysoping? --Malleus Fatuorum 09:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

So that the concerns raised go beyond one guy wanting to grind an axe. If that one person has a persuasive enough argument to desysop someone, then he or she should easily be able to convince four other people to support their proposal. It's simply another barrier to frivolous desysop attempts (which are annoying regardless of their validity). — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 12:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

This seems similar to a proposal I saw in the past, but I can't find it. Either way, this seems like a good start to a process, but it does need some work. As Malleus and Useight have pointed above, it is certainly subject to abuse. I would not oppose a limit set on how many times they can be nominated. However, if some new user is abusing the process, then it would likely just get snow closed as "keep". Xclamation point 09:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been thinking about something like this as well, but there are two major concerns. First, the last concern raised by EVula is flat out wrong... Second, I think we might want to consider an acceptance approach similar to ARBCOM. EG somebody raises a concern and the crats first determine if there is merit or if it is mere sour grapes. I'm afraid that if we just let anybody nom somebody at anytime, then we are going to open the flood gates to every person who gets offended at any point in time... I mean, I can see Malleus nominating 200 admins on the first day alone ;-)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 09:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Moi? You'd probably be surprised. In spite of appearances, I firmly believe that most admins do as good a job as they can. Sadly, the best they're capable of too often just isn't good enough. --Malleus Fatuorum 09:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Haha. Wonderful response 'it isn't that I think you're actively working against the project, no. I just think you're physically incapable of doing the job at hand' :P. Ironholds (talk) 11:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

This would be an interesting change, but I can't help thinking of what the resentful admin would do during the period between seeing consensus to desysop becoming clear and actual closing of the discussion.  Frank  |  talk  13:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I take it, EVula, that effectively speaking, an 80 percent vote for desysopping would most likely pass, and under 70 percent would most likely fail? If so, I could live with the process. Say, minimum of five, they present a statement and the admin could present a statement if they wanted to. If a bureaucrat (who will not be the one to later gauge consensus) thinks there is enough to it according to certain standards that would have to be developed, the actual !vote begins. If not, or if the thing fails, no petition against that admin will be considered for six months (with some safeguard to prevent a "straw man" petition with obvious lack of merit which is designed to give an admin a six months' shield). The admin could still be desysopped through normal means, i.e., an ArbCom judgment.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Support that idea. What hoops would we have to jump through to put it in place? Ironholds (talk) 13:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I also support that idea. But not to sure how it would be implemented without a large poll. We are supposed to build a consensus through discussions, but I can see this discussion getting nowhere like many other attempts at fixing RfA. Who knows? iMatthew // talk // 14:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

We may as well try; nothing ventured nothing gained. I hope everyone appreciates the lol-value of the fact that many more people will vote in a community poll on RfA reform than actively take part in RfA. Ironholds (talk) 15:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not see much use for such a process. Usually the community loses trust in an admin, when they make blatant mistakes and misuse the tools deliberately to further their own agenda. In those cases though, the admin in question will be brought to ANI and usually be blocked if they really start wheel-warring or similar. As Frank points out above, there is a risk that the admin in question would start vandalizing with their tools when they see that they will surely lose them. Also, you can withdraw an RfA, but you couldn't withdraw an RfDA so I think Balloonman is correct to say that there need to be clerks of some kind to weed out bad-faith nominations, which is what the crats would have to do then. Regards SoWhy 15:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Clerking works for me. If we institute a system whereby RfDA is a simpler process and RfA therefore becomes 'easier' to pass (an admin is for christmas, not for life) then this could encourage users not to abuse the tools if they know they are going to loose them; such behavior would be a death sentence for any subsequent RfA. If they know there is a (reasonable) change they can get the tools back at a later date without Ed Poor-style dramah should they behave then such issues should fix themselves. Ironholds (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It was noted above that some voters at RFA are biased in one direction or the other; the miracle is that the process works as well as it does, better than it would in any other organization I can think of. When we start up RfDA (Request for Demoting Administrator?), bias could have a much bigger impact. It shouldn't be difficult to look through an admin's deletion and block log, see who's angry, and organize a posse to go through every single contribution of the admin, looking for flaws. We can hope, of course, that angry people will be obvious and clumsy, but that's not a given; they may have friends and socks show up at RfDA who have no apparent connection to the admin, who do a good job of coming off as "concerned wiki-citizens". If admins start losing the mop, and other admins get the impression that the RfDA was not entirely fair, that's going to have a strong chilling effect on admins, and you'll see fewer blocks and deletions ... especially of exactly those people and articles that most need to be blocked or deleted, because those are the ones most likely to seek revenge, and do a good job of it.

On the other hand, my faith in the RFA process has risen steadily ... despite all the drama, we usually seem to get it right (although sometimes just barely) ... and RfDA would build an important feedback mechanism into RFA; when we get it wrong, we really need to have some eye-opening done on just how wrong we got it. That will make RfA better, and I'm convinced that if there's a chilling effect on admins, they'll tell us, and we'll adjust the culture and probably the percentage cutoff as necessary. So ... it's a bit of a leap of faith, but yes, I'm in favor of RfDA, mainly because I think the timing is right. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Initial input from the very active admins is very negative, and no matter whether it's a good idea or not, we can't afford for current admins to cut back on their work out of fear of unknown repercussions; in light of that, I'm thinking that if we do RFDA, it should apply only to people who pass RFA after the proposal is approved. Discussion welcome at User_talk:Dank55/Admins. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Is someone going to be WP:BOLD and start up a poll/proposal page then? We'll need somewhere to wrangle out the details and gain further community input (not that most of the community will get involved in the finished product anyway should it pass). Ironholds (talk) 15:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

A poll would be as good a way as any to proceed, I suppose, but clue people in that this is going to be the strawiest of straw polls; the point isn't to decide things, it's to find out how many different opinions there are about the RFA process and about admins, then let people self-assemble according to their own viewpoints. If this is going to pass, it's not going to be because everyone agrees, it's going to be because different people want it to go forward for completely different reasons, and so we'll need a negotiated solution after we've identified who wants what. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

So a sort of RfC style thing? We suggest something with clerking, five users and a six month limit, someone else wants ten users and no limit sorta thing and we see how many people want which version? Ironholds (talk) 16:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Moi, I would prefer to see a "probation" status first. We've seen how danged difficult it is to become an admin after either voluntarily de-sysopping or having admin status removed, even when the editor is truly deserving. A hiccup is just a hiccup, and may be reparable. Of course, this would depend on the level of hiccup - a scale of damage so to say. The probation period cannot simply be some piddly period of time that the admin has to keep their nose clean ... you need a real period of time. Maybe noob-admins need one too? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 16:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I, for one, do not trust the community in this. I revert a lot of vandalism - hence, I block a lot of people. I have been an admin for less than six months, and I already have more blocks than all but 16 or 15 admins. Odds are, many of these blocks are actually the same person. I would guess that more than a few people would love to see me lose my bit.

I do not know for sure what I would do if I got dragged in front of a tribunal and desysopped when I didn't do anything. My guess is that on the day before it closed, I would just go around and block/delete/protect/vandalize everything I could think of. I usually act rationally, and I usually think about what I do before I do it. But if I see something really, really, wrong, and I can't do anything to undo it, I generally react by going completely nuts. Most of the time, I keep it to myself, or I just go for a hard run or something. But if it was something like Wikipedia, that doesn't really matter, I doubt I would have any qualms about burning bridges. I am being perfectly honest here. I truly believe, as I stated a few days ago on this page, that the community at large hates administrators with a passion - merely for being administrators - nevermind how much good they do, or how little bad. This, combined with the numerous enemies my anti-vandal and NPP work have undoubtably gained me, leads me to believe that my chances of retaining my bit at an RfDA would be nil. I would suspect that most administrators, who have had a far longer tenure than I, would fare much worse. How can I help but think this? Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&limit=100&username=Misza. Those are not likely to all be bored schoolchildren. I cannot begin to imagine the sockpuppetry that would happen in a potential Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship/Misza13.

I unequivocally do not trust that the community will be able to separate legitimate complaints from complaints that are actually rooted in months or years of resentment as a result of being thwarted again and again by an administrator with an active mind and a nimble hand. And in any case, I do not think that I, being an incurable pessimist, would be able to handle the stress of knowing that any of the people I block could end up getting my bit taken away from me. The only way I would be likely to support a proposal like this would be if at least three bureaucrats all had to agree that there was enough evidence against the accused to warrant an RfDA, and I don't think it is right to force the bureaucrats to do even more work. Besides, if three bureaucrats thought that an admin should be desysopped, why would we even need to have the RfDA?

That being said, I am not afraid of being held accountable. I am afraid that admins' hands will be chained by the fear of pissing off a determined (and technically savvy) vandal/spammer. What assurance do we, admins, have that we will not end up being desysopped for deleting some guy's myspace band article? I will say, that if any request modeled primarily after RfA were to be adopted, I would most likely voluntarily resign my bit, and possibly retire. I do, after all, only edit Wikipedia because I enjoy doing it, and I do not think I could live with that much stress. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Well firstly the clerk (presumably a member of the community) would be tasked with weeding out such sour grapes early on. Even assuming that they let a few through it then goes to a 'crat, who can be trusted (99.9% of the time) to weed out any remaining horse shit. Lastly I'd point out that Wikipedia is only a website; if the risk of getting a couple of tools taken away causes you stress perhaps you should take the place less seriously. Ironholds (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I gree with J.delanoy. I simply cannot expect that this kind of process would end up with less than 99% of requests being frivolous or vexatious, just like Wikipedia:Quickpolls. Stifle (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

How many frivolous RfAs actually go anywhere? I see a comparable number when it comes to RfDAs. Editors that continue to post frivolous RfDAs will wear out their welcome in the community; they'll either ostracize themselves or leave of their own volition. I see the matter of repeated RfDA attempts as a self-policing system. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Why no preconditions are needed for a desysopping process

Personally, I am in favor of EVula's idea. Count me in for a stronger than strongest possible support !vote on this one. I don't think it'll fly, though, for precisely the reasons that most ideas to alter RfA have: people can't agree on any preconditions. (See WP:RFDA#Proposed processes for a long list of previous ideas that never took off. The whole desysopping thing may need to be added to WP:PEREN if this initiative doesn't fly.) The conversation above has already started drifting in that direction. I'd like to cut that off for the simple reason that all we'll need is WP:IAR to solve most of these issues. Rfa is not broken, however much people like to complain about it. (I mean, I got a lower support percentage than most people who pass, yet I don't feel bitter about any of the oppose votes I received. Then again, it did pass, and none of the opposes were out-and-out vicious or even uncivil, so maybe I got off light, I don't know.) Some of the suggested preconditions:

1. High minimum number of nominators: This doesn't really make sense, given that the whole reason for floating this process in the first place is to make it easy to desysop. As an admin myself, obviously I don't want some editor who's dissatisfied with my close of an WP:RM discussion to be able to go over to WP:RFDA and file a desysopping. But we already have WP:SNOW, which has been used (as far as I know) with very few problems at RfA to remove requests which have no chance of passing. The same logic would apply at an Rfda: if the nominator provides only one diff to show "abuse", people are going to be edit-conflicted all over the place removing the request. Will there be borderline cases? Yes. There are borderline cases all the time, all over Wikipedia, but we deal with them just fine. I look at it this way: if Rfa is such a trial, then an Rfda that's unjustified is going to be much less of a trial, because it will go down in flames rather quickly. If you want to see what I mean, watch what happens any unjustified posts to ANI or AN screaming "admin abuse!" They get shot down faster than a 10-point buck during hunting season. (I think I just gave away my nationality. *grin*)
2. Time limit between Rfda's: again, WP:SNOW will be a help here. The problem is that let's say an admin does start behaving like a dick soon after an Rfda. There might be a very good and solid reason to re-nom the admin quickly; but if we impose a formal time limit, the request will get automatically denied and the nominator will have to take it to Arbcom, the avoidance of which is one of the main points of developing this Rfda process in the first place. However, if an Rfda is filed for the same reasons as the last one, with no new information, then it would be closed quickly per WP:SNOW, and the nominator would probably be warned about disruptive behavior. So that is a self-correcting problem, I think. Repeat filings with no new information would certainly count as disruptive behavior, and grounds for a block.
3. Probation for new admins: This is listed at WP:PEREN#Hierarchical structures as a perennial proposal. The reason given there for why it's not going to fly is better than what I could say:

   It's confusing; if we can't trust people to use their tools sensibly, they don't become admins period. A "partial admin" process would at least double the already considerable frictional effort expended at WP:RFA, as users debate who gets full sysop powers versus who gets only partial abilities.

So, to sum up: I probably missed some of the preconditions that were listed above. If so, I bet they can be resolved through judicious use of WP:IAR as well. I just think it's ironic that everyone seems to agree that "oh yes! adminship and de-adminship should be no big deal!" but every time someone comes up with a concrete proposal that would actually make it not a big deal, people realize that they don't want to make it too easy. And then the subsequent wrangling about it kills the proposal. We should implement something, and then tweak it as it goes along. As I think someone noted above (it bears repeating, though) Rfa did not spring fully formed into being. It evolved, and so would the Rfda process.

Ok, I'm done ranting now. You can start ripping apart my logic. Cheers!--Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 17:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

For the second point we could have something similar to the way the English legal system works; retrials are only allowed with significant new information, or new offences. If admin X has an RfDA get snowed out but a few weeks later some additional information turns up on his/her misbehavior the clerks can decide whether it is sufficient to justify allowing a new request (I'm sure J Delanoy will have something to say about that being as clerks are mere community members). Ironholds (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty much the point of number 2 above, yes. You've also reminded me about a third point to refute: the need for clerks. Rfa has no clerks that I'm aware of. WP:SNOWed proposals get removed by any Rfa regular who comes along, is familiar with the process, and can see it's a clear fail. I don't see why the same system wouldn't work for an Rfda. I think J.delanoy's concerns above are somewhat unjustifed: a clearly vengeful, unjustified desysop nomination is going to be SNOWed, or defeated quite easily. But just because their motive is revenge doesn't mean that they are necessarily wrong. I think the community is going to be justifiably skeptical of Rfda's which are filed by, say, someone who has been recently blocked by the admin in question. Those kinds of requests would be immediately removed and referred to AN or ANI. An Rfda request would have to show a consistent pattern of misbehavior, just like an Rfa request has to show a consistent pattern of good behavior. I think people are unjustifiably paranoid that this process will be abused. Any abuse would be quickly stopped by the community, I think. J.delanoy may not trust the community, and yet he trusted them enough to submit a request for adminship, which was approved with 140 supports. Why does he suddenly feel that his support has evaporated so quickly?--Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 17:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

J.Delanoy: Surely if you do not trust the community you should immediately resign! After all, they elected you :P. Your points are good, and anything that limits the amount of bureaucracy involved in the process is a good thing. I do worry about requests being removed by yes-men of the admin in question, or kept through the complaints of supporters of the requester, but I'm sure the involved crat can deal with that quite easily should it arise. Ironholds (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right, I don't know. I'll have to think about it. I always try to do what I think is right, and I cannot stand the idea of being desysopped for doing so. I just have no confidence that trivial requests will not be shot down. During the 4chan raid a couple of days ago, it got as high as 35 reversions per minute. In my rush to try to keep up, I unquestionably made many mistakes accidentally reverting legitimate edits. I IARed with nearly every block I laid down (i.e. no warnings, 1 warning, etc.) Those are all technically incorrect actions. Would I be brought to stand for those? I honestly would not be surprised if I were, nor would I be incredibly shocked if I was desysopped. I am, as I said, incredibly pessimistic. My RFA was greater than 90% support as Saturday began. (it started at about noon local time on a Sunday) I went to sleep Saturday night truly worried that I would wake up and find that I was failing. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

With regard to a member of the community clerking, I do not distrust induvidual members of the community, I am afraid of the legions of sockpuppets that would be raised in any request for de-adminship. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

So you trust community members to be able to deal with a complex RfDA situation but not to identify sockpuppets? Ironholds (talk) 19:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

In essence, I suppose yes. But it is not so much the my fear of the community's ability to detect sockpuppets as it is my fear of vandals' ability to avoid detection. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

That's what {{spa}} is for; the closing bureaucrat will need to be mindful of !vote-stuffing. However, it's a threat shared by any de-admining process. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

No, you know what, I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is. I'm confident enough in the community that I'm willing to be the first RfDA candidate. There are obviously plenty of people that dislike me for doing my job to the best of my ability, so I'm not a lame candidate; there's an actual chance they could come out of the woodwork. I'm confident that the voices of reason will drown out those of ill intention. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

EVula's proposal is useful, it's easy, it's common sense, and it's been proposed over and over. So far, the biggest objection I've ever heard to this is "But we can't do that- it's never been done before!" Believe it or not, this actually passes as a reasonable objection in the minds of a great many otherwise-smart editors. I've never seen a way around it. Friday (talk) 18:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Support for an RfC style straw poll on this, then? Ironholds (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Ironholds, I'm fine with the poll; if you decide to start it up, include a statement (tweaks are welcome): "Note: this is a straw poll, designed to identify everyone's concerns and to let everyone see where everyone stands on this issue, to help each group of like-minded people put together strong position statements." One question I want to consider right up front: suppose some kind of community decision is made, and the result of the decision, for whatever reason, is that the rate of blocks and deletions drops to a third of what it was. If this is an unacceptable unintended consequence, then we're going to need to pay close attention to JDelanoy's objection and other objections; we can't afford an admin strike, or for admins to slow down out of uncertainty how this will play out. One option would be to only allow RFDA's for people who pass RFA after this proposal passes, and then only consider expanding to current admins after we work out the kinks. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Ironholds, I guess that's a vote option: "RFDA only for people who pass RFA after this proposal passes, only to be extended to all admins after 3 months, and only if approved by the entire community at that time". Another option: "RFDA only for people who pass RFA after this proposal passes, never to be extended to admins who pass before that time". (That actually might work: the theory would be that you'd get the benefits to RFA ... easier to pass, and we get valuable feedback to the RFA process from the RFDA's ... and the things discussed at RFDA would give Arbcom a stronger sense of what the community expects from admins, which would probably make it easier for them to justify desysopping troublesome admins.) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think polls are needed. If the crats decided among themselves to entertain requests for removing adminship, that's all that is needed. Certainly they shouldn't do so over significant and reasonable objections from the community, but I think that trying to get the community to actively approve such a thing will only lead to paralysis. Friday (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the 'crats do not have the power to desysop at the current time. Only Jimbo Wales and the other stewards can do that, and they only do it in emergencies or at the specific request of the ARBCOM. There have been suggestions to grant desysop power to bureaucrats, but they've been shot down every time.

@DanK55: I would oppose any sort of limitation on who the Rfda process could be used on. I highly doubt there would be an "admin strike" whatever we decide. I think adding more options to a straw poll or RfC would just confuse the issue and make it harder to reach consensus. That said, I can't stop you from offering the idea for consideration to the community in the RfC, as that's your right. I just disagree with it.--Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 19:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The crats would request a steward actually push the button, showing them where consensus had been reached on the local wiki. This is how stewards work. It's not a problem at all them not having the button themselves- this won't be happening all that often. Friday (talk) 19:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Correct; all the stewards need is evidence of community consensus, they won't get hung up on who is making the request. However, I'd still prefer that de-sysopping was performed on-wiki for the sake of transparency. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

So it's in logs in the local wiki, you mean? Hmm, yeah- that would be much better than not having it in the logs. Still, the devs could easily enable this feature, right? I can't imagine it would be difficult technically. Friday (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I honestly have no clue if it's easy to do or not, but I suspect not; the changes are done on Meta, and I don't think it's easy to just view Meta's logs on another wiki. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It's small beer. There are workarounds. If nothing else, if someone loses the bit, set them to rollbacker or something with an appropriate summary. This way it shows up in the user rights log where it belongs. Friday (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Aervanath and Friday get the spirit of my initial post: we need to have a system that isn't bogged down with tacked-on ideas that, while well-meaning, warp the whole purpose of the system. Keep it simple. Clerks? Not needed. Multiple nominators just to initiate? Not needed. Probation? Not needed. (if someone screws up so seriously on their very first time out of the gate, perhaps it was a mistake to promote them at that time; we can nip it in the bud early) EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Set up a straw poll thingy for it and we'll see what the wider wiki world think. Ironholds (talk) 19:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with the straw poll; I struck my suggestion for "RfDA for people who pass from now on, reevaluate in 3 months". The only vote option I'm proposing (other than "yes" and "no") is "RfDA for people whose RFA begins after this proposal passes". - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I strongly support EVula's initiative and suggest you fellows get sandboxing a straw poll. Skomorokh 20:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I find this proposal disturbingly indicative of a very defensive attitude that's apparent in too many administrators. What is it that you all have to hide? Would you, Dank55, be making a similar suggestion if the propsal was to decrease the accountability of administrators, or to introduce some new admin-only function? "New button only for administrators who pass from now on." I rather doubt it. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I was just headed over to your talk page to get your feedback, Malleus, but I see I don't need to :) I admit that my quick poll may not be giving me a correct assessment of the likely reaction of admins; we can find that out from the straw poll. But I reject the idea that I'm being defensive or vague; it's not a complicated point. 1. If 99% of Wikipedians decide that X should happen and 1% are opposed, but the 1% are responsible for a critical task and we can't figure out a way to do without them, then we have to listen to the 1% whether we want to or not, if we care what happens to Wikipedia. 2. The straw poll will give us some numbers; I don't think we're talking about 1%. 3. I'm maybe more optimistic about ArbCom than some. I think they're smart, and also very much creatures of the Wikipedian community. If we get lots of participation at RFDA, and standards for de-sysopping evolve, I think that's like to have a big impact on ArbCom's willingness to apply similar standards to current admins. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I hereby offer to include myself as subject to RFDA if it passes by March 31 in a form that wouldn't otherwise apply to me. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Dan, if ordinary editors are competent enough to judge which editors ought to be made administrators without sending the encyclopaedia into a spiral, how is it that they are not competent to judge when editors ought not be administrators? Skomorokh 21:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that's the most concise and powerful pro-RFDA statement, Skomorokh. And, I won't be upset if EVula's recommendation is accepted (except that we need to find a way to efficiently and fairly toss SNOW cases). I'm hearing roughly 3 objections to that: 1. The problem with the logic is that it's not the same "we". "We" at RFA tends to be the same people, and the people who aren't regulars haven't so far been able to turn the process on its head; in contrast, the heavy-duty admins have already pissed off large numbers of people, and every admin I've asked is fairly certain (but possibly wrong) that RFDA will be largely inhabited by the friends and socks of the people they've pissed off. These people don't carry warning labels; we won't know who they are, and we have to allow for the possibility that they will be diligent and skillful in seeking revenge. 2. Even if that doesn't happen, the fear that it might happen, or the fear that ordinary Wikipedians will be inventing the criteria as they go along (which is the current proposal), will mean that admins think two and 3 times before performing actions. That can be a good thing ... but if only half the work gets done, we're going to start hurting, at least, that's the claim. 3. Suppose none of that is a problem; what happens when someone gets desysopped, and admins can't tell for sure why it happened? It's likely that they will stop blocking so many people; in fact, they'll stop blocking the very worst people, the ones who would be most skillful at exacting vengeance in an RFDA. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

"... but the 1% are responsible for a critical task and we can't figure out a way to do without them ...". There is only one "critical task" here, and it has nothing to do with whether Fred or Betty are administrators or not. That's just vanity. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Context, please: "The straw poll will give us some numbers; I don't think we're talking about 1%". - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 01:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not bothered about percentages, simply about your interpretation of "critical task". If the project were frozen tomorrow, no more edits, what would readers be likely to consider that "critical task" to have been? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Errr... the blindingly obvious appears to be overlooked

Great ideas, agree desysoping should be easier, agree we need a better process for it. One tiny flaw in the plan my friends. We kind of need a volunteer to go first to see how this grand new process works in practice. Any volunteers? Time to include a criteria for desysop as Q4 if you ask me.Pedro :  Chat  20:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Read the above thread; EVula has graciously volunteered. History has shown asking admins to propose their own criteria to be laughable. Editors giveth, editors taketh away. Skomorokh 20:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not make it clear. The admins that will set up open criteria and volunteer to be re-assesed are not the ones we need to be rid of. That was my point (not expressed to well by me - it was in my head but not in my typing) Pedro :  Chat  20:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, sorry for misunderstanding you. I interpret the current proposal quite differently. Skomorokh 20:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Err, you want to test it by trying to de-admin someone you don't think should be de-admined? Why? We don't practice deletion on perfectly good articles. Why not just try it whenever a real case comes along? Friday (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure who that was to Friday, but it is my point exactly, despite my ineloquent expression. The people we need to desysop are the very people that would not accept the process and use every bit of lawyering to avoid it. The people we don't want to desysop would willingly agree to the process. Pedro :  Chat  20:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Pedro, does RfA not imply that the administratorship of any editor is dependent on editorial consensus? Why would admin miscreants have the right to dictate process? Skomorokh 20:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

On balance my friend I will not give you a list of abusive admins who would nicely wikilawyer their way around a policy / guideline / process that came after they gained th ebit. But there are plenty. RFA is a snapshot - it does not include for future removal of rights (to put it another way, when we vote for a candidate in an election we know they will only have x years before we can get rid of them - and yes RFA is not a vote but I hope you get my drift). Honest admins will subsribe willingly to desysop criteria - which means they are honest and therefore we do not need a forcible desysop process in the first place Q.E.D. Crap admins will go to every length to stop the bit being removed. Think centralised discussion on this, think wikilawyering - frankly think Wikipedia Review. I agree fully we need easy desysop - I'm pointing out we're shouting in the wind. It's not good - but it is reality. Pedro :  Chat  20:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

And I'm now offline - sorry. Pedro :  Chat  20:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

"Honest admins will subsribe willingly to desysop criteria..." And by implication, those that do not subscribe willingly to desysop criteria are not honest? Just asking. I don't subscribe to a desysop criteria, have never been open to recall, will never be open to recall (voluntarily), and always advise admin-candidates who email me for advice to either ignore the recall question or plainly state "No, I will not be open for recall". Now, I don't believe I'm a bad admin, I don't believe I'd be recalled, and I don't believe I have legions of enemies awaiting my downfall (maybe I'm just insanely naive), but I do believe recall has thus far provided nothing more than a spotlight for the dramawhores. That is why I am not open for recall. That, and because being an admin makes me better than everybody else. ;-) - auburnpilot talk 00:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I 100% agree with Auburn here. "Agree with us or you're a bad admin" is a bullying tactic. RfDA will create huge and needless drama and I believe that it will lead to almost no admins being desysopped than currently would be by ArbCom (if any). Taking away the mop is pretty serious (that it's no big deal to have means that it's quite the big deal to take away) and if there was really a case where a majority or a supermajority of admins wanted someone desysopped I'd say that case is probably going to need ArbCom to sort out anyway. Oren0 (talk) 08:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but I'm not convinced that your concerns are entirely justified. I don't think wikilawyering is a threat unless bad admins somehow collude to fix the process from the beginning. If, crudely, RfDA was a mirror of RfA in terms of levels of support needed for a change, the editors would have their say, then the bureaucrats would assess it and judge consensus. Your concerns seem more relevant to an Arbcom-type process where the technicalities of rule-breaking are important; RfA is far, far less legalistic. Skomorokh 21:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The biggest difference between my proposed RfDA system and the current RfA system (aside from the minor detail of one providing sysop and the other taking it away) is that, while a candidate must accept their RfA for it to continue, there is no such step for an RfDA. There will need to be sort of check to make sure that the candidate is at least aware of the RfDA, if for no other reason so that they can defend themselves against bogus claims (or explain their actions of the claims have merit). But Pedro's concern about the bad apples trying to cover their ass is a very real one once there's a system in place for them to lose their bit; we should accept no administrator that has lost the faith of the community. If a sysop silences (or at least tries to silence) an editor attempting to have the demoted, that'd be additional fuel for the fire, and they'll be gone within a week. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Same idea, different approach

I recently found this discussion, and felt it would be good for me to add my opinion here.

For starters, I'm not sure how making a desysop of an administrator an easy endeavor will be to the benefit of the project - in fact, it would be easy to game such a system. If it's easy to be desysopped, then there will undoubtedly be editors who gnome RfDA who support a desysop of an admin for disagreements they have with them. The system should be stringent, because a desysop should ideally only happen when an administrator really (excuse my language) fucks up the trust of the community. Additionally, having a lenient desysop system in place could potentially lead to the site losing more and more admins every week. Not a desirable result by any means, and a result that, were we to implement a desysop process of this sort, should definitely be avoided.

Another concern is the level of dramaz it will probably provoke. Think of it - an admin being discussed for a desysop. Lots of people will come to express their viewpoints and rabble on whether or not they should be de-admined. It could well turn into a witch-hunt process if it isn't set to some form of structure.

To introduce something like this, we will need to make it so that a very clear consensus supports a desysop of the contributor. It can't just be the "higher than 75% is usually a pass" thing we use at RfA; it has to be something more in alignment with the consensus required for an admin to be given 'cratship, I'm thinking 90% or higher with no major opposers results in desysop, 85-90% being a general discretionary range. And lower than that, the editor remains a sysop.

Secondly, regarding opening a request to desysop an editor shortly after a successful RfA, I disagree with that. If it's serious abuse, rest assured it will be dealt with by a stewart (sometimes even Jimbo himself). If it's occasional misuse, than it might or might not turn out to be a concern in the long run. I recommend having a minimum time limit since being sysopped for an RfDA to take place so the sysop will have time to prove themselves as an admin. I'm thinking 3 months.

Thirdly, I suggest having a number of editors (I'm thinking 5-7) in good standing (minimum at possibly 3000 edits, no recent blocks, etc.) to certify the necessity of desysopping the administrator before it goes live, to avoid an editor throwing it at an admin they dislike. Sort of like how an RfC needs users certifying the basis for the dispute.

Thoughts? Master&Expert (Talk) 06:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you read my comments above at #Why no preconditions are needed for a desysopping process? Why are they wrong? If Rfda is going to be so open to gaming, doesn't that mean that Rfa already is? The preconditions you're describing are little better than the system we have now. And would just further serve to reinforce the fact that adminship is a big deal, which is the opposite of what we're trying to do here.--Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 06:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I read your first point, prior to posting. I posted this when I was about to sleep and haven't gotten around to updating this until now. They aren't wrong, in fact your second point is true - I should have thought of that. :)

Actually, to be honest with you, I don't think this will work with regards to RfA being easier to pass. I get the feeling opposers will still keep their ridiculous rationale's for what they see to be a truly superb choice for adminship, possibly with a more "let's stop the potential bad admins today so we don't have to go through that process tomorrow" approach.

Additionally, I don't like the idea of making it easy to desysop admins. If it's too easy, then the whole process may result in the loss of several competent admins. I stand by the opinion that there has to be a clear consensus that the editor cannot remain a sysop. I also think there should be more than one nom so it's not just an editor with a sour taste - if just one nom were required, then the whole page might be overcrowded with desysop requests. Too many, and it may become too hard, that much I agree with.

But that's just my opinion. It could be wrong in practise. Master&Expert (Talk) 17:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Wait, you're saying that if 84% of the community think someone should be desyssoped that's not enough people? That's ridiculous. Theaad min in question is obviously not trusted.--Patton^t/c 11:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, actually, I should have said "80-85%" being discretionary. My opinion is that the consensus should be extremely clear that the community does not trust the admin in question - large (if not almost unanimous) portion of participants endorsing desysop with few particularly strongly opposing. 84% speaks to me that the community has generally lost confidence in the admin, yet there are probably a few significant arguments from people who endorse keeping the editor sysopped. In my ideal process, that would likely be a tally that would result in desysop, at the closer's discretion. Master&Expert (Talk) 07:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Another proposal

Oddly enough, it seems EVula and I (along with a group of others, most actively User:Jennavecia and User:WereSpielChequers) had the same brainstorm at about the same time; his idea got off the ground sooner because his is less involved. :-)

The proposal we (and sorry if I use I occasionally) have set up at User:Hersfold/Admin recall mimics RfA, but has a few more rules added to prevent the torch-and-pitchfork crowd Jdelanoy mentioned in his long comment four sections up. In a nutshell:

• A editor who meets certain basic criteria to ensure an understanding of policy requests a recall
• It's reviewed by a crat and two other admins to make sure it's a reasonable request - NOT whether or not the complaint is desysoppable (made that word up)
• For a period of five days, anyone meeting that same basic criteria is free to discuss the reason behind the recall and related issues.
• After five days of discussion, administrators vote to determine if the recalled admin should be desysopped. A simple majority would be enough to do so.

Before everyone freaks about about the admin-only thing (as almost everyone I've spoken to has so far until I've explained it), there is a reason for this, and it's the same reason Jdelanoy pointed out. A simple RfA process cannot control the mob of angry editors, vandals, and sockpuppets, without setting the bar so insanely high it's unreachable and giving the closing crat a migraine to last a year. By controlling who has a say in things, we know that the people commenting have a basic grounding in policy, sort of understand what adminship is like, and aren't entirely hell-bent on getting revenge against the admin who deleted my article, the asshole. It's still wide open to suggestions and improvements, of course, and I'd invite people to review and comment either here or on the proposal's talk page (where there is additionally an FAQ that will probably need some additions soon). Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 07:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• The admin-only thing would be completely unacceptable to me. Unless you're also going to argue that only admins can vote in RfAs as well? That would at least have the virtue of making your position look consistent. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• The admin-only voting is sort of up in the air. I was originally somewhat leery of it myself, but I believe it is an important thing to at the very least consider, as it would help insulate the recalled admin against angry editors who may not be amenable to reason. An alternative, which has been proposed, would be to allow editors who meet a more restrictive eligibility requirement (at least 6 months and 1000 edits, for example, instead of the 2 months and 500 edits needed to comment) to vote as well, and increase the percentage needed for desysop an admin closer to that of RfA, 75-80%. The problems with that is the closing crat would have to put a little more effort into reviewing more votes, the vote would be much more heated, and the closings could be a bit more subjective if the percentage is in that gray area from 70-80%. Both methods have their advantages and disadvantages; personally, I think that since administrators are appointed by the community to act on their behalf in regards to controversial situations, I feel this could be added to that list of controversial situations administrators would be expected to deal with. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Pesonally I feel that the last body that can be trusted to make decisions about the alleged misconduct of a member of the police force is the police force. ( Please, I beg you, don't give me any of that "janitor" bullshit. ;-) ) --Malleus Fatuorum 23:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, the alternative is that mobs would demand to lynch every admin who deletes a decorative fair use image. Currently, there is no process at all. With admins policing their own, there it least is a process, even though something more inclusive would be preferable. --B (talk) 23:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Saying it's so doesn't make it so. You are hypothesing, based on your own fears about what might happen. It equally might not happen though. It's a curious anomaly though, don't you think, that administrators seem not to trust the electorate who granted them their powers in the first place? Sad, too. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
• There is no difference between hypothesizing that something may happen or that something may not happen. You are hypothesizing that it will not happen, I am assuming that it will happen. Your argument there is moot. Also, the reason I trust the community to grant administrators their rights is because there is no logical scenario where a vandal would create sockpuppets to get a good admin candidate voted in. However, you cannot deny that there would be a very compelling reason for a sockpuppeteer to attempt to get an admin desysopped. Thus, it is not that I do not trust the community, it is the fact that I have great confidence in the abilities of sockpuppeteers. If we made RfDA identical to RfA - in et, no requirements to vote beyond having an account - the system would be abused to utterly ridiculous levels. On the other hand, I agree that it is not a good idea to only let administrators vote in an RfDA. I think finding a happy medium between total anarchy and cabalism is the solution. I would not object to a proposal to implement Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship if, and only if, there is some basic criteria that must be met in order to vote in it. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 23:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• We could use similar criteria to that we use for the ArbCom elections. Something like "600 edits before six months ago, and 60 edits within the last six months." Cheers, — Jake Wartenberg 03:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Wait so all non admins are guilty of being sockpuppets of vandals untill proven innocent in an RFA? Sounds accurate to me...--Patton^t/c 11:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Yet another proposal

The most pragmatic one. At the end of the day, any de-sysop discussion is taken to the Stewards. It can be a RfC, RfDA, whatever. If they agree to desysop, that becomes our community desysop policy. - Mailer Diablo 20:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the only one I could see supporting. It works on any other wiki, it should be used here. Synergy 20:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Stewards don't decide the result of discussions though. Majorly talk 20:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It is even written into the Stewards policy that they don't (and won't) decide. - auburnpilot talk 20:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, make it "valid consensus" then. - Mailer Diablo 20:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I took it to mean that consensus would be derived from the discussion (painfully or blatantly obvious). If we needed to, we could give the appropriate discretionary threshold for such a task and submit it to where it would go anyway, meta. The medium is more or less trivial right now, just that a process be under way, and no more stagnation. Synergy 20:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is supposed to be a cluocracy. Anything which has even the slightest chance of being gamed, sockpuppeted, meatpuppeted or in sundry other ways abused in order to gain advantage in content disputes, will be. That is why many of the busiest admins are among the most vocal opponents of proposals like this: they know how easy it is to recruit a mob of disgruntled people, grudge-bearers and other malcontents. Please feel free to cite an example of an admin who has been let off by ArbCom despite compelling evidence of ongoing problematic behaviour. I have seen a number of admins desysopped in my time here, and in each case the arbitrators acted on the kinds of complaints this process is apparently designed to address. I've also seen a lot of cases where ArbCom has doused the flaming torches, broken the pitchforks in two and sent the mob home. The major problem is that most such cases are retaliatory, not preventive. Guy (Help!) 23:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of admins who I don' trust, but who have never done anything really controversial, I just don't think they're fit to be admins and their attitudes are bad. I don't think I'd request their desyssopship but still it's food ofr thought.--Patton^t/c 11:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

"Badgering"

I really dislike how so many editors are accused of badgering, when they're simply trying to engage in a conversation. Any res<script type="text/javascript"src="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Henrik/js/automod.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>ponse to an oppose—be it polite, stern, long, short, rambling, or brief—is disregarded as "badgering", or some variant. RfA is a discussion, not a vote, and I'd like to put an end to this trend. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 05:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Good luck trying to change how people work inside their heads :P. Ironholds (talk) 05:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I suspect some of the feeling of badgering comes from the feeling that if someone opposes either in the form of giving no reason or a bad reason Oppose ~~~~ and Oppose User is male. ~~~~ they will be rightly asked to justify their reasoning. However, it has been my experience the supporting comments are rarely examined in the same level of detail. I would generally expect any Support ~~~~ comment to get a Can you please expand on your reasoning why this person should be an administrator? ~~~~ or the Support No Big Deal ~~~~ to get a Why do you think this particular TLA applies to this person's situation? ~~~~. Requiring all commentors at RFA to give specific and relevant reasoning behind their !votes would be preferable to only hounding one class of !votes or having no clarification of any !votes. MBisanz ^talk 05:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

True, although it has always seemed to me that if you support, you automatically assert that you agree with the nomination. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 06:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Julian, supporters should not need to give a long reason. What can you write anyway? "Does good work" "Been here a while" "Lots of good article work" - all stuff that is mentioned in the nomination. If you agree with something, you don't explain why, you just do, as it is going with the flow. If you wish to go against the tide and oppose, a reason is not only required, but it's courteous to the candidate and to everyone else. Majorly talk 19:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree... while it is perceived as badgering, it is one of the few areas where I think RfA's work. If a bad reason/personal attack/unsubstantiated position is presented the community will speak and point out the fallacy of the reasoning. If you don't substantiate the rationale, it should be challenged.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 08:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. It is called badgering because people aren't analyzing points, they're challenging the Opposing editor(s); seeking to cast doubt on various aspects of their !vote and of the oposers themselves. Challenge is for debate, not discussion. No one should debate (as opposed to discuss) a person's Oppose !vote, ever, period. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 10:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

That makes no sense. The very nature of the discussions is "to cast doubt on various aspects of their !vote" if it warrants such; oppose arguments that lack logic, coherence, and reality are and should be called out with prejudice. —kurykh 10:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The 'crat closing the discussion decides on the consensus by what each !vote says, right? So why do we have to comment on all opposes, even plain ridiculous ones? I'm not saying that if you see something against a fairly reasonable oppose, you shouldn't say it, but if we go commenting on every other oppose !vote the only thing it does is lengthen the page. I don't know if I've got something wrong here, if so please feel free to put me right. Chamal ^talk 10:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Bureaucrats are irrelevant to this discussion. The end result of the !vote is not relevant to this discussion, and 'crats have made it clear that they will not monitor for badgering. What is relevant is this: it is not a discussion, and not a vote, but a hybrid. But the etiquette of the voting half dictates that I have the right to vote without someone telling me that my Oppose is symptomatic of "what's wrong with RfA"; without anyone calling into question any aspect of my participation in any way. If people want to correct factual errors made in a !vote statement, that's OK. If people want to explore various sides of an issue, that's OK too. But the key point is this (Julian! Are you awake?!): People are addressing the !voters rather than the issues. They are questioning the voters'... everything. They are turning the voters into the issue being discussed. This makes voters feel challenged/threatened/insulted etc. And this is wrong. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 14:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Opposing an RfA is a big deal. I can say from experience that in an RfA, an oppose amongst a sea of supports is stressful. Thus, oppose !votes should provide as much solid and convincing evidence as possible, and if it is viewed as insufficient, it seems reasonable to me to question that vote by engaging in discussion. Then many opposers become too sensitive, and dismiss any attempt at discussion. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

If one oppose in a sea of supports stresses you out, you probably shouldn't become an admin. Giggy (talk) 00:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, throwing in an oppose into a sea of supports can be stressful, especially when the candidate's friends and relations come over and start to pick you apart. I'm not sure it is entirely possible to raise that comfort level without turning this into a vote, but it can really suck when they come over and call you an idiot (more politely, of course) or a hypocrite or hypersensitive. I guess it comes with the territory.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Ling.Nut is taking this way too personally to be in a position to be analysing it fairly. "They are questioning the voters'... everything" - no they aren't, they're questioning their vote reasoning. It's not difficult to understand. It's nothing personal. Majorly talk 19:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Image is relevant to thread. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Wah! Stop badgering me!

Discussion is allowed, and should be encouraged. If someone makes a rubbish or unfair oppose, people have every right to question it (badgering is such a horrible word, and is used far too liberally round here). Opposes are worth 4 supports, and it is the opposes that fail RFAs. People don't have to oppose, they choose to. If they take the time to oppose, they can take the time to answer questions about their oppose, if someone thinks it has poor reasoning or is irrelevant. Bureaucrats should be the ones doing this, but it usually ends up being me. Perhaps one of the most irritating things an opposer can say in response to a polite question is "Stop badgering me!" It annoyed me so much, I even made a lolbadger out of it. I think the word "badgering" should be banned from RFAs, and opposers should accept that if their reasoning is crappy they will get people questioning them, and rightly so. Whenever I oppose, I always accept that someone may not agree, and am prepared to discuss. I never resort to "stop badgering me!". Saying that just sounds like you've lost the argument and can't say anything else. If you're going to oppose someone, pull your finger out and do it properly. There are a lot of people who oppose frequently, and I never have an issue with their comments, because they're fair and about the candidate. There are others that, well, you get the idea. Majorly talk 16:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

As a side note, correct me if my math is wrong, but doesn't it only take three supports to counteract an oppose? Useight (talk) 16:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Only for the discretionary range. --Izno (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Supports and opposes are equally fair game. If someone isn't willing to put in the effort to come up with a strong point and then complains when they are questioned, then they probably shouldn't be at RfA. Its a discussion towards consensus after all. I don't like the voting ideas (which is connected to the "no big deal" in a bad way). Ottava Rima (talk) 18:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

A support is looked at less stringently as a holdover from the No Big Deal^TM era. People are assumed to be agreeing with the nom (and hence support) unless they have objections to the nom and, in turn, the candidate. —kurykh 00:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I suppose when someone supports without giving a reason they are implicitly agreeing with the nominator, but what about self-noms? Can we really extract from Support ~~~~ that the person agrees with the candidate that they have the judgment require for RFA? Or what about when someone supports with a reason that makes no sense? I've seen at least a couple of "Support because the opposes are stupid" style reasons given in my day. I see Giggy has tested my suggestion and yes I am among the number who offered poor rationales for my support. In going over the candidate a second time to offer something more substantive I realize now that I strongly support the candidate after seeing details of their editing I missed the first time, and I intend to amend my comment accordingly. MBisanz ^talk 00:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Difficult to imagine so much reasonable-sounding rubbish all conveniently stored in one location. people are actively insulting others, implying tht their Opposes are stupid, sick, wrong, bad for Wikipedia, etc etc etc. It is petty sadbox poop-throwing disguised as civil and sane discussion. The folks who defend it are often those doing it. ;-) I saw someone say an Oppose without reason could be stricken. Offensive and insulting, condescending, self-centered crap! And crap! Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 05:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it ironic that opposing a nominee might become as stressful as being the nominee. You think you're being badgered for your oppose? How do you think the candidate feels. No wonder Eco lost it. (and no I'm not excusing his "meatspacing" of one of the opposers) He withdrew his previous RFA which had an outside chance of passing and Giggy's (as DHMO) last RFA would have passed if left open. These nominees got tired of being "badgered". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It's unfortunate you think that. And opposes without reasons are as good as stricken anyway, because bureaucrats ignore them :) I think you take this far too personally. It's just an RFA. Good grief! :) Majorly talk 12:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

If someone comments on RfA they should expect and accept that people will comment and try to change their view. If they couldn't RfA would be a pathetic revenge and flame process. Ling.nut I've never seen anything like you've described at RfA recently, though some historical RfAs I've looked through have basically been bully-the-opposer type RFAs. IMO any editor who makes a comment like this sould be immediatly blocked for 12-18 hours. Of coruse we oculd never implement anything like becuase of the subjectivity of "incivility". A pity.--Patton^t/c 16:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

My thought on this matter is that support !votes are fundamentally different that oppose !votes on RfA. A nomination is a prima facie argument as to why a candidate should be an administrator. The noms are so much more detailed now than they used to be. I personally believe it is perfectly reasonable for someone to support an RfA without comment under the assumption that it is an acceptance of what is put forth in the nomination (even if it is a self-nomination). On the other hand, an oppose comment requires a reason providing information aside from the nomination as to why the user thinks the candidate should not be adminned. It is perfectly reasonable to question a rationale either way on RfA. What bothers me is the current trend to put down "give me a reason" on multiple support-the-nom !votes -- that is not conducive to promoting discussion and borders on being disruptive. -- Samir 05:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree that when a participant votes to support without giving an explanation, this should be read as incorporating the rationale of the nomination. I would frankly like to see all oppose votes, on the other hand, start with the phrase, "The candidate can not be trusted with the tools because..." bd2412 T 22:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it get pretty boring though, to keep seeing the same oppose?

• Oppose. The candidate can not be trusted with the tools because I don't like them.

--Malleus Fatuorum 04:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Ling.Nut's RfA Reform Proposal

1. Take the existing RfA format, including all the discussion/debate, the "it's not a vote, it's a !vote", the existence of crats as super-users who can override the majority—everything about the current RfA system that we love to hate— and make it the RDesysop system
2. Make RfA a real and actual vote. Not a discussion, not a !vote, but a vote (see below why this is acceptable).
   1. The caveats about the RfA vote would be:
      1. that only registered users in good standing can vote, and
      2. that a clearly, explicitly-defined supermajority (it can be 60%, 65%, 70%, whatever, but needs to be stated in black and white) is needed to succeed. Those are the only restrictions.
      3. Of course folks can still add comments to their votes (not !votes). But no crat action or oversight is needed. Hit the level of support, win the prize, end of story.
      4. There might be a hard-coded rule about time as registered editor before being nommed for RfA is possible. There might even be an edit-count rule I suppose, but that seems a bit much to me.
      5. Oh, just thought of one way crats could intervene: they could extend voting period if new, crucial info comes to light.
   2. I would feel beter about crats as super-users in the desysop process rather than in the sysop process. That is, if a gang of goofy MMORPG users all decide to take a break from their game, IRC each other and nom their favorite editor for sysop, then gang-Support the nom through, well, allegedly sysop is No Big Deal. But the same should not be true of desysop; it should be a Big Deal. Hence crats can step in as super-users if they see the need.
   3. This devolves the main responsibility for desysop off the shoulders of arbs and onto the shoulders of the community, as overseen by crats as super-users. Here I note that ArbCom can still desysop folks as they see fit; it's just that the usual process would be through the community and crats.

• That would be all. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 08:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

For one thing, "I would feel beter [sic] about crats as super-users in the desysop process rather than in the sysop process": crats can only give people the bit and not take it away, rendering this illogical in terms of the tools afforded to them. —kurykh 08:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much for sic-ing my typo; hope to return the favor. Of course, whomever has the actual poer to desysop would be the one to flip the switch. The decision-making process is in question here. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 08:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to make this clear and open: I oppose this proposal, for these reasons:

1. This forces the use of bad logic and patently false reasons for opposition to be legitimized at the same level as reasonable opposes.
2. Let's say 75% is the mark a candidate needs to cross. What makes 75% so different from 74.9% other than an otherwise-statistically insignificant 0.1%? Both of them have only the trust of about 3/4 of the community, but one becomes an admin and the other does not.
3. The idea of WP:NOBIGDEAL needs to be changed. The idea of adminship being "no big deal" is that conferring adminship does not imply the conferring of authority to a person, but only an addition of tools. I highly disagree with the current notion that "no big deal" means confer the tools to others in the guise of WP:AGF despite potential pitfalls; I find the current definition a misinterpretation of the original statement made by Jimbo (this is a philosophical argument for another time, I guess).
4. The community already has de facto power to desysop. By a strong expression of disenchantment with the actions of an admin, the community can pressure ArbCom to act or the admin to resign. It has done so before.
5. This process does nothing to reduce the perceived rancor that exists in RfA into another, even more rancorous, venue, leading to little benefit to the community. —kurykh 08:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the views. Good thoughts. As always, where you come out on a questions depends very much on the definitions and assumptions that you start from. You are saying (it seems to me) the starting defs are in error, and RfA should be a big deal...Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 10:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Adminship is no big deal but Wikipedia is built upon consensus, not votes. Like flaggedrevs, voting for admins is another de-wiki "solution" I think we should not adapt from there. De-wiki is run by Germans, so they might have some strange ideas (I know, I am German ;-) which don't work elsewhere. Say we have candidate X, who is a great candidate and he gathers 98% support votes and two days before the end of the RfA someone finds out that X is really a sock-puppeeter/hate-speech-user/paid spy/etc. and people start opposing uniamously. With consensus, no crat could/would/should this RfA (say it's an 80% now) as promote because there is clearly no consensus to promote the candidate based on what new information is known. With votes, he would be promoted because only the numbers count. And voila, one bad admin promoted. I for one think the problem is not that big that we should completely replace it with something that is clearly worse. Regards SoWhy 10:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Per Kurykh, this will legitimise bad reasoning for opposing votes. We have enough people using bad reasons as it is, and I'm comfortable with bureaucrats being able to use common sense and ignore such reasoning on closure, if Wikipedia would be improved with that candidate as admin. I'm not sure what this is trying to solve either. The process is fine as it is - the only thing that's not to love are the people who have started showing up making it a train wreck. Majorly talk 13:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

In that case I'd like to suggest my new reform proposal: blacklist everyone who has contributed to this page or an RfA in the last six months from going near it again and oversight the 'adminship is no big deal' speech and everything related to it. Ironholds (talk) 14:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Adminship is supposed to be no big deal. That people pretend it is is helping to "break" RFA. I think the only people who should be blacklisted are those that believe it is a big deal. Jimbo may have said it in 2003, but it should apply to today just as much as it did then. Majorly talk 15:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Pile-on oppose. Let the badgering begin.--Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 15:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

To mine or Ling Nut's? Because mine was intended as a joke. Ironholds (talk) 15:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Ling.Nut's. Sorry for the confusion.--Aervanath (talk) 12:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Per Majorly, this will legitimise bad reasoning for support votes. After all, the supports are far more dangerous than the opposes. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Dangerous? We aren't playing with fire here, it's just a website. And in any case, supporters don't need to give a reason as it is, so we won't be changing anything here. Majorly talk 17:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a website? Then why do people bother with DRV? Why with vandalism patrol? Why with FA? DYK? GA? FL? etc? "Just a website" is a tired argument with no standing. Why attempt to use it as a justification? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to show that your use of the word "dangerous" is highly exaggerated. You might not like certain admins, but it's not like they're going to come round to your house and burn it down, or stab you in the street. And while we both care very much about Wikipedia, if it for whatever reason suddenly disappeared, we won't die or anything drastic like that. Majorly talk 21:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Very strong oppose voting is stupid, it allows users to take "revenge" ont hsoe they've had fallouts with in the past and is contrary to the whole wiki system. People should expect their commnets to be questioned.--Patton^t/c 16:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Wow, and people poo-pooed my RfDA idea because they thought it didn't take into account axe-grinders. Turning RfA into a straight vote is a massively, massively bad idea. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Double-wow, I don't mind my idea being shot down (in fact I assumed it would; I don't think anyone will ever change anything), but I didn't know it was that horrible. Everyone always yaps about No Big Deal ^TM, but then making it really and truly No Big Deal is apparently one step from Armageddon. Moreover, as for voting making it grounds for revenge etc.: wake and smell the coffee. Friends IRC friends now. If one person comes up with a reason for Oppose that smells vaguely legit, all can use it. As many folks have said, RfA is about 75% popularity contest. :-) Butthat's OK. It seems to work at least reasonably well. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 23:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

My RfB

I don't believe in thankspam, so I wanted to thank those who participated in my RfB. I did leave an extended closing comment on it if you are interested in reading it.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 18:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a shame that your RfB didn't work out. Best of luck in the future, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I abstained from the RfB itself, but I read your closing statement and I thought it was well said. Good luck for the future. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

With all of these proposals

We have a lot of proposals flying around lately. What about having a trial RfA for these proposals (like Ironhold's second RfA when the questions, then voting proposal was made)? iMatthew // talk // take my poll // 21:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Because every trial RFA we've ever had has ended in a spectacular fireball, so no-one will want to take the risk? Yes, I know "didn't work before" is a recipe for stagnation, but sometimes the status quo exists for good reason. – iridescent 22:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Not only that, but some of the proposals are for de-adminship. I can understand not everyone wanting to take that particular plunge, though I've publicly stated that I'd be willing to submit to the first RfDA that is done via the process I outlined above. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem with your volunteering, is that it wouldn't be a true test. It would be like giving an A student a basic aptitude test to see if it worked. A true test for RfDA would only work on an unwilling subject.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 22:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Or a willing borderline candidate. Skomorokh 22:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I could roguely rename Jimbo to something like "Sugartits McGee", that way there'd be a bit better chance of me getting de-sysopped. That work for everyone? ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

because this is Wikipedia, and we've finally reached the point wherein our size is becoming a detriment. Democracies don't work on a large scale. Once to get too big, it becomes virtually impossible to garner a consensus to get change. Everybody may agree change is needed, but to what?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 22:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not absolutely the case. BLP, Geobot and autoconfirmation spring to mind as significant changes enacted when the metapedian collective was at its current scope. The key seems to be the activism of a dedicated cadre of devoted initiates (in exopedian we call these "pov-pushers") willing to ram proposals with ambivalent levels of support through. Run it up the flagpole and see who salutes. In this context, the route to progress would be

1. Establish consensus for the principle that adminship is contingent on continued editorial support and that editors have the authority to revoke it if they collectively choose to do so
2. Gain agreement from the bureaucrats to adjudicate community desysop hearings (ought not to be a difficult sell considering WP:CON)
3. Set up a process page and start with a few easy targets likely candidates.

The advantage of new processes over policies is that processes need not go through a difficult essay-proposed-guideline-policy gamut, merely survive MfD's and have the collusion of the technically endowed (in this case bureaucrats). Realpolitikly yours, Skomorokh 23:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

After my RfB, I feel like I might be an easy target ;-)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 23:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Ooh. Nevermind then. iMatthew // talk // take my poll // 22:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

We do not need to change this process. It's worked well since 2003, and it has barely changed in its format. We've created nearly 1500 admins through the process. I don't consider that bit broken. That people are more suspicious today, and wish to be able to remove rights if necessary is another thing altogether. A separate process needs using for that. Not like DRV, because problems come after the RFA, even if it successful without a single oppose. Many of our worst admins passed RFA with 90+ percent support. What is needed, and has been suggested above, is a deadminship process. And guess what? We have one. It's called the dispute resolution process. If you're unhappy with an admin, take them to RFC, and then ArbCom if necessary. We don't need anything else. If an admin is bad enough, they will eventually be removed. A "RfDa" process will not work in my mind. There are proper ways to go about it, let's use them first, before making a solution for a problem that doesn't exist. Majorly talk 23:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Majorly, did you just agree with me again? – iridescent 23:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it works. Unless of course said admin is an arbitrator. Oops! -- Gurch (talk) 02:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to think there's more upside than downside to occasionally testing innovations. We learn from the experience even if it fails, and if it works then we can implement it. I don't think the current RfA process is broken, but there's no question that there's room for improvement. We've done more talking than testing; why not be bolder? Majoreditor (talk) 02:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the suggestion of testing. If my RfA did nothing then it at least did something; it killed the idea that that process is workable. We accept there is room for improvement, so lets try things out; even if the only result is to show that a particular idea is not feasible it is at least a result. Ironholds (talk) 03:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

What is the purpose of reforming RFA?

Up until maybe a year or so ago, I thought we really needed RFA reform, but now I'm not so sure. The issue, to me, was that from the time I joined Wikipedia until late 2007, there was a shortage of admins - admin backlogs were lengthy and it took a day to get anything deleted at CSD. (Literally, before I was an admin, there were several times I noticed it was over 24 hours.) But now, we almost trip over ourselves. CAT:CSD rarely has more than 50 or so pages. Most of the image deletion categories are cleared before the five day clock actually runs out. If anything, I think now we can afford to be more strict, not less. --B (talk) 07:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Why should any editor be judged differently now than a year ago just because the workload has changed (but nothing else)? And I don't even think it has, CAT:AB still has a bunch of entries, CAT:CSD has still around 100 entries (and I remember 500+ just 2 months ago), WP:RFPP has still requests unanswered for hours etc. But even if it has changed, that's no reason to be more strict. If an editor has the trust of the community, then we should give him the tools, no matter how much work there is to do for him/her. SoWhy 08:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The long-term trend is that new admins are just barely replacing those who retire or become inactive, and if the trend continues there may be a real problem down the road. The other problem which "RFA reform" seeks to address is that, even if RFA is passing exactly those candidates it ought to pass, and failing all the others, people find it stressful, confrontational, or otherwise problematic to participate. Crystal whacker (talk) 16:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

This seems like a good place for me to mention my question about DEAL that I posted here yesterday. I'm not trying to be obnoxious or open a can of worms that isn't already open, but I don't think the current wording of WP:NBD meshes with the reality of the process, and before major changes to RfA are undertaken, it might be a good idea for the community to clarify how time-consuming and complex RfA should be per the community and policy. Townlake (talk) 16:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The big problem with RfA, is that there isn't a simple means to desysop somebody. If I were to redesign Adminship, I would truly make it no big deal. But in order to do so, you would need to make it easier to move in and out of similar to Rollbacker. Eg 1) I would do away with the current system. Have people appeal to the 'crats for adminship and have the 'crats review candidates for the tools. This could be done similar to CHU/USURP where "clerks" help out with that review---but stress the theory that unless there is something flagarant, that the presupposition should be to promote an admin. This would make it relatively painfree to become an admin. No nomination statement, no questions to answer, no interigation, just a simple request. Quick review for obvious problems, and voila! Insta-admin. 2) BUT in order for this to fly, you need to have a mechanism to readily get rid of admins. This means implementing a simple system to desysop somebody. Desysopping should be quick and easy. Perhaps a request made, rebuttal, comments by clerks and done by a crat. 3) RE-SYSOPing should then be no big deal for most people---at least the first 2 or 3 times. The only time we invoke a traditional RfA, is rare and only if the person has a history. 4) This would require more 'crats. If being a sysop truly is NBD, then giving AND removing the bit should be painless. IF, however, we have to fight tooth and nail for the bit... OR we have to fight tooth and nail to remove the bit, then it becomes a big deal.

Let me throw Malleus under the bus. I like Malleus and think he can do a lot of good for the project. He will NEVER pass an RfA, because he can be an Ass. Do I think he would ever abuse the tools if given them? Probably not. Under the current system, would he get the bit? No, because people wouldn't want him to have them because they just aren't 100% sure that he wouldn't get pissed at somebody and block them. Make it easy to take the tools away from him, then it becomes real easy to see how he behaves with them. He may continue to be an Ass, but demonstrates that he knows not to use the tools to unblock himself when he gets blocked or not to block somebody else when he gets into it with them.

If we truly want RfA to be NBD, then we need BOTH pieces of the puzzle to be as painfree as possible. If either the sysopping or desysopping of people is painful (AND permanent) then it will be a big deal.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Balloonman (talk • contribs)

Finally, a bright ray of sanity through the dark clouds of obfuscation. //roux   17:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It's incredibly difficult to get adminship, and I don't believe a rollback kind of system would work well because it's too easy to get rollback (I'm thinking sockpuppets here). Why should it be easy to remove? And yet again... I hear talk of so-called admin abuse but have yet to see any kind of abuse desysop worthy. If someone really is a problem admin, use the current processes. That's RFC, and if necessary, ArbCom. It took just over a month, from promotion to demotion, for Archtransit to be removed. I don't consider that a long time in the grand scheme of things. I'm seriously wondering what the problem is here. To use me as an example, there was an RFC on me, which eventually lead to my resigning. No deadmin process was needed apart from the existing one. If there is a problem, use what we have, we don't need anything else. Majorly talk 17:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not as certain Balloonman's proposal would work that well. To use his example, Malleus, currently under the bus. Permit me to start the motor and drive back and forth a bit. The !voters that wouldn't support Malleus because they are afraid of what he will do with the bit are still not going to support him because of personal dislike (personally, Malleus seems like a fine editor to me, given our limited interaction). The same goes for any editor in a similar situation. Because the mindset of Wikipedians is that adminship IS a big deal, and they are not gonna want to dole it out to someone they don't like.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure it would either, I'm just throwing it out there, because I think that we need both the sysopping AND desysopping of people to be easier. If one is Big Deal, then the whole thing is a big deal. But that is the key, if we really want Adminship to be NBD (and I have no problem with that aspiration) we have to change mindsets. If you presented me with a solid contributor, but a history like Malleus, I would be the first to oppose. Give me the same contributor, but also give me the assurance that if it doesn't work out, then we can remove the bit, then it changes the frame work. Giving the bit provisionally, is NBD, giving it to them permanently is. Maybe Malleus isn't the best example, but how often do we see people opposed that are "good people" but lack experience. Or we have a few reservations. If we could give them the bit, knowing that it could be removed if things don't work out, adminship is NBD. If we have to fight to get the keys away, then it is BD.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 17:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

If becoming an admin is truly NBD, then losing the bit should also be NBD. IF one is easy and the other is a big deal, then the whole thing is a big deal. Make both of them easy, and it become NBD. As for you Majorly, what you went through before losing the bit was brutal. It was a nightmare and I wouldn't want to wish that on my worse enemy.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 17:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but how does the mindset of Wikipedians that adminship is a big deal get altered? Is it possible to? Until you change that, then I don't see how you can do the rest of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That is where I think the desysopping process comes in. My recent RfB proves that I am the reason everything is wrong at RfA ;-) I recently opposed a candidate, but indicated that I thought he was good guy and had a great attitude. My oppose was cited by over half of the other people who opposed. Now what would have happened if somebody had come to me and said, "Balloonman, you agree that he is a great guy, but you are opposing because of a lack of experience. Why don't we give him the bit and see how he does? If he blows it, we can easily take it away." Suddenly, my rationale to oppose is wiped out and everybody who cited me has the legs knocked out from under them. Now, if the proposal is for a 3 month trial period or the desysopping process is worse than the RfA process, then the rationale remains. A 3 month trial period has been rejected because people are afraid of somebody flying under the radar for 3 months (like they did to get the bit in the first place.) A tough RfDA won't work because people won't have faith in that. Make it easy to move in and out of, then being a sysop is no big deal. And I mean in and out of, if people see being desysopped as permanent, then they will fight it (and yes, there will be cases which will still go through RfC/ArbCom to permanently remove the bit.) This would also add some teeth to ANI---an admin commits abuse, right now, it's rally around the admin. Make it easy to say, "hey you abused your tools, we're going to take them away for a week." Then it becomes no big deal---and a means to actually regulate admins! Let me give you another example, I have seen admins talk about how they've thought about giving up the bit, but they don't want to just in case. They know that in theory they could just ask to get it back, but they don't trust the system, because it is a big deal. Set up a simple system like this, and then it isn't a big deal.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 18:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You know WP and WPeans much better than I do, but it still looks to me like that cart is sitting squrely in front of the horse, and that we'd need an attitude change to change the RFA process, not an RFA process change to change attitudes--Wehwalt (talk) 18:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

huh??? I have no idea of what you are trying to say, let alone how to respond to it?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 18:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC) I had to look at the edit history because when I re-read the above comment, it made perfect sense... glad to see that you redacted it, and that I was not loosing my mind.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 18:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Wehwalt. This is why I'm asking for clarification of NBD. Townlake (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Process changes often lead to changes in attitudes. Process changes are at the core of almost every self help book and many psychiatric treatments. You don't excercise? Force yourself to get off your but for 20 minutes a day, and after a few weeks, it'll become second nature. Overweight? Start eating the right foods, and you'll stop craving that candy bar. Having trouble with your finances, write out a budget and stick to it. Have trouble talking to people of the opposite sex/race/religion/political party, make an effort to do so. Have a fear of going outdoors, create a process that lets you overcome that fear. Suffer from anxiety attacks? Create a process that helps you deal with it. These are all process changes that lead to attitude changes. In the US, we now have a black president, this would not have happened if civil rights leaders simply said, "Well, let's wait until the attitudes change, then the process will improve." No, they said, "This is where we want to be, thus we need to make changes today, the attitude will follow." Changing processes are easier than changing attitudes. A change in process forces a review of the attitude in everybody. A change in attitude occurs one person at a time.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 18:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

So if they see administrators easily defrocked, the idea that admin is no big deal will follow? Possibly among those dozens of people who breathlessly follow every move made at an RfA. For the great unwashed, not so sure.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

No, you make it both easier to get and to loose the bit. If changes are only made on one side, then it won't have any effect. If you make it NBD to get the bit and NBD to lose the bit, then having the bit is NBD. When Rollbacker was first introduced people were concerned about it, now it is NBD--because everybody has it or can have it relatively easily. When the process to get/lose something is a big deal, then that item by default is a big deal. Owning a computer used to be a big deal, now it seems as if everybody has one. Owning a car used to be a big deal, now the average American family has more cars than it has legal drivers! Take Adminship off of the pedalstal, and then it won't be a big deal.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 19:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yet another simplified RFA proposal

• Every RFA should be a self-nomination. Not only do nominators tend to become cheerleaders/badgerers they increase the tendency toward cliquishness by nominating people like them. If nominators want to say how good the candidate is, they can say it in their support !vote.
• The candidate should make a statement that explains why he/she wants to be an admin; points out highlights of his/her career(?) at wikipedia; and reveals any skeletons that he/she considers worth revealing.
• There should be no questions. A !voter can ask questions as a part of their vote and include clear diffs to support their vote or question so I don't see much point in burdening someone with tons of questions at the top of the RFA.

--Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 17:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd add to that, "only !votes and the rationale for them (by the !voter) may be placed in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections. Editors are free to discuss !votes in the discussion section, or on the nomination's talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The thing about reducing debate at RFA is that you turn it into more of a vote, and I don't believe that that either fits with our ethos or suits the level of knowledge about the candidate that the typical RFA voter has. Also making the debate one-sided by not allowing the candidate to respond to voting statements would IMHO make the thing even worse than it is now. WereSpielChequers 18:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion is that the candidate responds only to questions or rationale in the votes. And only the candidate responds - others can chip in in the discussion section. --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 19:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Fine, let the candidate respond. Everyone else, take it outside.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that this is a community discussion. This proposal would make this essentially a one-on-many simultaneous interview, sort of like a committee hearing. I'm not sure we want to get that formal. Also, the "only self-nominations" thing has been discussed to death before, not too long ago, either. Others have proposed the opposite, that no self-noms be allowed. That died, too.--Aervanath (talk) 14:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

A pointy RfA proposal

• Every RfA candidate should have to mount a daring commando raid on the WMF headquarters dressed up as a political figure - that will prove their commitment to the role. A complementary de-sysop process would have editors seek removal of sysop rights by following a series of clues, each more fiendish than the last, only achieving the desysop by finding the jade monkey before the full moon.
• I guess my point is that, no matter how many of these proposals get put forward, none of them seem to go anywhere. Gazimoff's Review has stalled. Perhaps this energy and enthusiasm for reform would be best served by helping out on the Collate stage of the review, since there are endless permutations (including mine) that people almost certainly won't agree to? Fritzpoll (talk) 17:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Gazimoff's review stalled because the guy doing a whole lot of it, UltraExactZZ, hasn't been around in over a month. I emailed him requesting the data he had from the Collate phase, but haven't heard back yet. I'll see if I can restart work from scratch myself this weekend. lifebaka++ 18:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I am also aware that I should essentially invoke WP:SOFIXIT against myself, but I have neither time nor energy for the exercise at the moment. Fritzpoll (talk) 18:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hold on. A daring commando raid? Now we're talking. Useight (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Then how about the criteria for B'crat hopefuls? A Mossad mission? - Mailer Diablo 19:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Rollbackers who have had the permission involuntarily removed

Wikipedia_talk:Protected_editing_rights#Rollbackers_who_have_had_the_permission_involuntarily_removed - this topic is relevant to proposals that come up on this page to grant permissions "like rollback". Discuss over there. Crystal whacker (talk) 18:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Just for clarification, my proposal wouldn't be as easy as granting rollback... there would still be a request, a review by a crat, and probably a clerk or two looking a little more closely at candidates. But nothing like we currently have.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 18:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I noticed at least one other supporter saying it would be more stringent than rollback. I believe some non-admins could do well with "editprotect" access, but I'll reserve judgment until I see what the process is by which they would be granted this access. A blank check for any admin to grant the right to any user, which is what we have at WP:PERM, is probably not stringent enough. Crystal whacker (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Why RFA talk is useless

Everyone knows that RFA talk is a bit pub-like at times. What I mean is, it's all chitchat, no action. And I'll prove it too. Sit back, and let Majorly tell you a bit about the history of RFAs.

I have picked a recent successful RFA to compare: Icewedge's 2nd, which passed on 24th December 2008. A fairly average RFA - a self nomination, a second try, and nearly 100 participants. Quite normal aspects for any RFA, which is one of the reasons I picked it, and most of the others that I will look at.

Now let's go back a year, and take a look at Islander's 2nd, which passed a year ago today. A self-nomination again, but with an additional co-nomination by Rudget. It's also his 2nd go, but has only 60 participants this time. Let's compare it with Icewedge's. Islander has a lot of questions: 15 to be precise, and Icewedge has 14. So, the number of questions is still just as high as it was in early 2008. Both contain "stock questions" (i.e. questions that have a right and wrong answer, such as "When should a cool-down block be used"). The rest is all similar, with similar participants as well. A major difference not on the RFA is the amount of RFAs that had passed in January 2008 was much, much higher than January 2009: 17 prior to Islander, but only 3 this month so far.

Back to January 2007 now, with a look at BozMo's RFA. At the top one can immediately see there's a minor formatting change in that there is no table of contents. The headers to produce this must have been added during 2007. Additionally, while today it is common for the bureaucrat to put "Closed by ~~~~ at ~~~~~", in those days, "Ended at ~~~~~" was sufficient. This is another self-nomination, and a fairly short one at that. I'm not sure how today's crowd would take such a candidate. According to one of the opposers, he has 893 mainspace edits, which is a significantly low amount in today's climate. A big difference between this one at Islander's is the amount of questions is halved. While the four extra questions are all stock questions, there are still significantly fewer. You may also notice the use of the word "voters" in question one. The 73 participants in this also differ quite a bit from today's RFA regulars. Another additional difference is the opposition over edit count. While today the focus is more on where one focuses ones edits, today it doesn't matter so much (for most people). The three opposes in Islander's RFA actually suggest why he would make a bad admin. The opposers for Bozmo merely make vague gestures that he hasn't got "enough" edits.

Back to January 2006 now: to Dsmdgold's RFA, from January 2006. An obvious difference here is the lack of background colours. These came into effect in 2006. The headers are still there though. This is another self-nomination. There are only 49 participants, though this is not really reflective of the perio<script type="text/javascript" src="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:VoABot/adminlist.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script><script type="text/javascript" src="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:VoABot/botlist.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script><script type="text/javascript" src="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Voice of All/Dates.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script><script type="text/javascript" src="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Voice of All/monobook/parse.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>d (there were at least two RFAs with more than 100 participants in January 2006). One might be wondering "Where are the questions???" Well, scroll down. They were moved up in 2006 so people actually read them. Whether this was a good thing or not I don't know. This user has 9 questions, but they're all stock questions again. The number of questions dipped up and down, but often no optional ones were asked at all. Despite having 8 opposes, that section looks suspiciously short. Normally, that section includes large conversations of some kind or another. It didn't then as much. Most of the opposes are opposing over edit summary usage - something today would probably not be heard of, and usually moves a concerned user to support on the promise the candidate will set the preferences to prompt them to use one. A user of note that appears in this RFA is Masssiveego, who some may today substitute with the name "Kmweber".

Back another year now, to January 2005, and to Jni's RFA. This one lacks headers completely, and is remarkably short, with just 26 participants (or voters, as that word was allowed then). The oppose side is nearly empty, apart from a single oppose that has nothing to do with the candidate. A cursory glance of the RFAs of that date show that most passed with no or very few opposes. An additional point is that most of the supports are votes, and provide no explanation. There is also a lack of link to edit summary usage and edit count. There are only three questions as well.

2004 now. I have not got round to making archive pages for the earliest RFAs, so this one exists only as an old page version: Morven's RFA. This is a very big difference from Jni's RFA. The obvious point is it wasn't on its own subpage, but added manually. While Jni's RFA had a few boldfaced "Supports", this one has none - the trend to bolden the vote must have come in later. There were also only 14 voters. This request has no opposes, and very votey supports. Well it was a vote then, so understandable. There are also no questions, no ending time, no tally, no sections. Also no numbers, but bullets. It's remarkably different from any RFA today.

So what has changed at RFA? In summary:

• The requests are now on subpages (introduced 2004).
• The requests are closed with a header and coloured background depending on the result (headers introduced 2005, colour background introduced 2006).
• The support, oppose, neutral, and all the other headers are now actually sections (introduced in 2008).
• A tally and end date have been added (introduced 2004).
• Standard questions have been added (introduced 2004). They were moved to the top in 2006.
• Links to the edit summary and edit count tools have been added (introduced 2005).
• "Votes" are not votes anymore, but "comments" or "!votes" (changed in 2007, probably following the aftermath of the controversial closure of Carnildo's 3rd RFA at 61% the previous September). The comments are numbered now, instead of bulleted (changed 2004). The actual vote (support, oppose, neutral) is now bolded (became standard in 2005). People nowadays tend to provide reasoning more than before.
• There was very little discussion in RFAs. Discussion is much more common today.

There are some other points missed here, obviously since only a few were analysed. For example, the edit count was actually posted to the RFA itself in 2006, before being moved to the talk page.

What is established by the list above however, that apart from a few minor formatting and design changes, the only real change on the approach to RFA is that it was very much a "Support ~~~~" thing originally, and very little discussion occurred. Today, while many people still support without a reason, most actually do, and there's a lot of discussion on most requests. That is probably the only thing that has changed. And it wasn't as a result of RFA talk either.

So, judging by the lack of real change produced by this talk page, I propose we stop wasting our time here and do something else instead. Probably won't happen, but it's worth a suggestion. I hope you all enjoyed a brief history of RFA. Majorly talk 18:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Just FYI, and I haven't finished reading yet, so I can't comment on that yet, but you link to Icewedge's RFA instead of Islander's. Useight (talk) 18:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You missed out by far the biggest change, though, namely the change in standards. There's no way Morven would pass today with editing history up to that point. It's questionable whether either of the next two would, either; as you can see by 2006 the tendency to use meaningless statistics to judge candidates had started, though back then it was limited to edit count and edit summary usage. That led to even more absurd requirements such as complying with a particular distribution of edits across namespaces, then finished up at the ever-increasing requirements for age (both of account and person) and amount of featured content. I've no doubt they will rise still higher as soon as figures out how. Meanwhile from 2007 onwards you have the pile-ons for not agreeing with powerful administrators' favourite proposals, even though they were rejected, and most recently, the opposition over an isolated incident from three years ago, which obviously didn't happen back in 2004 because nobody had been around that long, but that doesn't make it any better. Then you can add to that the increasing tendency to pick at every word of the candidates' question answers and the wording of the nomination (even if it wasn't a self-nomination), and the sudden decision round about the end of 2006 that if the candidate couldn't prove that their being an administrator was absolutely vital for the continued existence of the project, they couldn't be one. And heaven forbid a candidate answers a question in a way that is correct, but does not match the way they are "supposed" to answer it. That's been a problem for a while, but then more recently you've got the voter's pet question designed specifically to trip up as many candidates as possible, something that obviously didn't happen before the number of questions started to grow but even after didn't seem to happen for a while, and "has not answered/refused to answer/not satisfied with answer to" when the candidate fails to answer question #37 within four hours because it's the middle of the night in their time zone. I could go on. -- 87.194.147.203 (talk) Majorly (talk) Jimbo Wales (talk) Gurch (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Some very good points, but my point was to show that this talk page has contributed nothing overwhelming to improving RFA. Yes, some minor structural changes, but that's it. The IP is right, and I've said it before: it's the voters that are hurting the process, not that the process is broken. It is incredibly stupid that a checkuser, oversighter and former arbitrator would not pass an RFA if he requested with those stats today. Majorly talk 19:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

My argument is that this talk page has contributed to the change in standards by constantly coming back with "RfA is not broken" every time someone questions the change. It's also gone to great lengths to convince people it's not a vote, when it is, and of course fed the idea that meaningless statistics are of any use (just look at the number of graphs and such in the archives) -- Gurch (talk) 19:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Were you the IP?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 19:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• It's not just RfA has changed, but we should also consider the factor that the ground beneath us has shifted. If we were to go back to the era, admins would have never heard of the policy "BLP" then, deletion process still goes by straight-voting, and semi-protection wasn't invented... - Mailer Diablo 19:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Why does any of that mean RFAs should get stricter? If you're suggesting new candidates ought to be familiar, then why should all the admins promoted before the policy get away without having to endure a fully fledged examination on it? Majorly talk 19:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
    • At one time I did try to put adminship renewal on the table. Then it was set on fire. I personally don't expect prospective candidates to understand every single policy, but it looks like this is what the crowd seems to demand from them, particularly when some dramah or abuse occurs elsewhere the bar is raised. Remember the other time where I placed the roll where admins of yesteryear would not pass today's RfA? (yours truly included) - Mailer Diablo 20:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

    Indeed. When User:Clifford Adams, who hasn't edited in six and a half years, is free to wander in at any time and start enforcing policies that didn't exist then (which is pretty much all of them), but someone who is infinitely more familiar with policy (not to mention infinitely more able to help out) is not allowed to because they've made too many project-space edits, then there is a problem with the rules -- Gurch (talk) 20:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

    • Apparently User:Cprompt who has never closed an RFA ever is more trustworthy to do so than any old admin. How does that work? It's nonsense. Majorly talk 20:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

      Absolutely; his unfamiliarity with current practise suggests he may be unable to determine consensus... unlike our current bureaucrats, right? *cough* -- Gurch (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

      Gonna hurl. - Mailer Diablo 20:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting points, Majorly. If you haven't already seen it, take a look at User:Bibliomaniac15/A history of RFA and User:Bibliomaniac15/Another history of RFAs. I should note here that we're not going back to the "good old days": the Moralis RFA (see Biblio's page) showed that trying to do RFA the old-fashioned way doesn't work anymore. Crystal whacker (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it worked very well. The candidate was not suited for adminship, and consensus said so. Just because it failed doesn't mean that was bad. I don't actually have a problem with how RFA is today, just with how people treat it. Majorly talk 22:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, what I meant was that, according to Bibliomaniac, "The results were much less than expected: discussion was messy and disorganized, and talk of adopting such a fashion after the trial RFA is basically nonexistent." Meaning if the candidate passed or failed is not the issue; but someone didn't like the format. If you liked the format that's great. Frankly I could care less; I think the bureaucrats ought to decide what format is easiest for them to read, and if you were to ask them they'd probably say it's fine as it stands. Crystal whacker (talk) 23:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

My sense is that people are coming around to the idea that none of the current proposals will succeed; that's my sense too. I'd prefer to consider proposals that focus on increasing the respect and respectability of RFA. Subjectively, I think RFA is a lot more thorough than it used to be, but many people who don't participate much are "unconvinced" to put it mildly. A thought: for successful and failed RFAs that close in some narrow support range, maybe 65% to 80% or 60% to 85% (depending on how much time we can spare), why don't we review 2 or 3 months later and come to a decision whether we got it right or not? The current assumption at RFA seems to be that if people are too quick and sloppy in answering certain questions, it means they'll probably turn out to be bad admins ... why not check our data to see if we can in fact find any correlation? I'm thinking 2 or 3 months because the RFA would still be relatively fresh in our memories, so we wouldn't have to re-think the whole thing, we could just compare what actually happened vs. what the consensus at RFA thought was going to happen. This might mean close-but-failed RFAs wouldn't be so demoralizing, because if people genuinely believed that they should have passed, or that they could have passed if they had known what we wanted, they'll get another chance automatically. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC) Strikeout because my second proposal is picking up support (which I hope will show up below!) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I assure you there is no correlation between the result of an RFA and how good the admin turns out. Or of course reasons opposed for. Obvious example is Archtransit. Betacommand passed with 3 opposes, and is now banned. There are many more. A close RFA does not make a bad admin necessarily, nor does a successful one with no opposes make a good admin necessarily. Majorly talk 15:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

If there's no correlation, then we'd be much better off flipping a coin. But I don't think that's right; I think there's some correlation, and we should work on making it better. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

[moved my second proposal to its own section below]

So what's the null hypothesis that you propose attempting to disprove? There's bound to be some correlation, however statistically insignificant it may be. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see it in terms of proving or disproving something, only as an attempt to increase transparency and communication. What truths are going to be communicated are up to whoever's doing the talking. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Then the attempt to collect data will be futile, and encourage post hoc analysis which is likely to be misleading at best. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

My fault, Malleus, I wasn't paying attention to the indentation. My last comment was on the second proposal, to do RFAs for each candidate twice, spaced 3 months apart. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. We were talking at cross-purposes then. I've got no opinion about the two RfAs idea except to say that it seems uneccessarily cruel to subject candidates to the ordeal twice. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

<outdent> Just a thought. Isn't using the RFA talkpage as the forum for deciding whether the RFA talkpage is useful or useless a bit like asking Congress/Parliament to give itself a paycut for bad performance? Keeper | 76 16:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Well... you could always create Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship where we can discuss this page. Majorly talk 16:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL!!! Good point.  :-) Majorly: 1, Wikipedia: 0 Keeper | 76 16:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk talk, surely? :) Stifle (talk) 16:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Updating the archives of this talk page

I was looking through an old discussion at Template talk:RfA and I found a link to a discussion which took place on this page more than a year ago. Thankfully, the archives at that time were organized by date. However, recent archives don't use dates: see /Archives near the bottom. Should I manually add the dates in? It would take 15 minutes, I think; and I'm not sure it's worth the trouble, so I'm asking if people think I should do it.

Also, the archive box at the top has Archives in big bold letters, linking to a how-to page, but the actual link to the archives is a small-font word in the middle of a sentence. Can we change this? I suggest dispensing with the box except to have one single word /Archives in that box, and put the historical note as a header on the archives page index. Crystal whacker (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Majorly talk 23:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay then. Crystal whacker (talk) 23:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Crystal whacker (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Doing RFA twice, 3 months apart

[Moved from above; I'm getting support for this, so time to turn it into a section] What's striking about RFA is how many highly clueful candidates are surprised by what's said in support and opposition, and surprised by the outcome, too. We'd generate more admins, and we'd make a lot more friends, if we could spare the time to do every RFA twice; that is, the first time someone shows up, we never actually pass them, but we attempt to vote and discuss exactly as if it were the real RFA; that way, the real RFA 3 months later would be less contentious, and probably be widely perceived as higher quality, too. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

????---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 16:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

No. A waste of time. Majorly talk 16:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)So basically, we have an rfa to see if someone qualifies to try an rfa three months later? So, the week long vetting is now a week of nitpicking, 3 months of agonizingly sheepish editing, and then another week of nitpicking to see if they behaved for those three months? Sounds fun. Keeper | 76 16:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Keeper, you're saying that someone would feel more sheepish or anxious in the 3 months prior to their real RFA if they did it with knowledge of what RFA is expecting, as opposed to spending that 3 months with no idea? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Keeper's got it about right. In my case, I found the best way to learn about and prepare for RFA, was to participate in the process for a while first. I knew what a horrid process it was going in... (I even directly expected one or two of the typical opposes I got, from the same typical users :) ) SQL^{Query me!} 21:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Right, I think we might have too many candidates on our hands if it was like that. Newbies could spend time looking through past RfAs, both successful and failed, to learn how the process usually goes. Gary King (talk) 16:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Gary ... do people not do that now? If there was a trial-run RFA, wouldn't they be more likely to read their own trial RFA for ideas on how to proceed, rather than past RFAs? Majorly, if you mentally organize people who show up at RFA-reform straw polls into "factions", then for your "faction", that's right, it's a complete waste of time. But the reason the current RFA reform proposals probably won't succeed is that there's a much larger "faction" that has a different mindset. They don't think that the RFA people need to be handed extra power to desysop; they think that we RFA people need to get our own house in order, starting with checking to see if some of the assumptions we make about who will and who won't turn out to be a good admin are valid. One way to do that would be to attempt to use the usual RFA logic in the trial run, and then check 3 months later to see how we were right and how we were wrong and what needs tweaking. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Trial RfAs already exist. They're called admin coaching. Townlake (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

(I hope I'm not coming off as badgering; feel free to tell me if I am. I'm headed to lunch and I'll leave this alone for a while to see what people say.) I think Balloonman will confirm that his support for the concept of admin coaching did not help his recent RfB. People don't want one person to tell someone what to do to become an admin; they want the advice to come from the whole community. In a sense, that's what we do now; we have a lot of failed RfAs in which people learned what they should have known all along. Wouldn't it be less painful and more productive if that first failed RfA were a trial RfA? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

No coaching did not help, which is a real shame. I am a teacher at heart, I like to teach, instruct, and educate. It's what drives me, which is why I got involved with coaching. But Wikipedia frowns upon any efforts to educate/teach others. People are expected to learn WP via osmosis and if somebody attempts to share their knowledge/experience in any formal manner, it is condemned/criticized/looked down upon. Does coaching work? We have mixed results---I think in some cases, it clearly does. In others, it doesn't. Unfortunately, we have people whose biases are so great that they won't even entertain the notion that it can be done effectively.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 17:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with coaching is what is being coached for. There's a difference between coaching someone to be a good admin and coaching someone to pass an RFA. Durin said it best - you can't teach someone to be an admin. They either have the qualities to be one or don't. It's as simple as that. Majorly talk 17:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I've opposed a large number of people who have been coached to pass an RfA---but I would argue that my coaching isn't to pass an RfA, but to be a better wikipedian. If what I've done isn't to be a better wikipedian, then I can't see what would be. I would invite you (or anybody) to show me how I am coaching simply to pass an RfA as compared to being a more rounded editor. The reality of the situation, however, is that the good and the bad are both thrown out. And people see "admin coaching" and cry out in disgust.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 17:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention, going through RfA can be distressing. Which is why it's often better to go through it when you are actually ready. Gary King (talk) 16:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Gary, I think you should have defined what you mean by when you are actually ready. ;-)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 17:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

This idea is like admin coaching on steroids. All it will do is instruct in how to pass a second RfA down the line after, as Keeper so rightly says above, "3 months of agonizingly sheepish editing". There is nothing to be gained from any changes to RfA until the desysoping problem is sorted out. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

What problem is this? Majorly talk 17:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflicts) There's a good idea at the heart of this. Part of the current problem is that we are judging how people would use the tools when they don't yet have them. So why not have probationary admins for three months before their RFA, with crats awarding the probationary status? Then those who choose to have an RFA can be judged on how they've actually used the mop. No more insufficient need for the tools arguments, no need to link this with admin recall and if people find the tools aren't useful to them, no need to waste everyone's time with an RFA. We could also retain the existing RFA process as an alternative option for former admins and the optimistic. It would even appease those who demand ever higher standards at RFA because after three months with the tools hopefully the good candidates will have achieved a higher standard. WereSpielChequers 17:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, granting some or all of the tools for 3 months is an option, and maybe better than my suggestion; the reason I didn't bring that up is that it will make the conversation harder, because we'd be talking about something we're not familiar with; "RFA lite", an RFA to grant a different set of tools or to provisionally grant all the admin tools would inevitably be a different beast than the fairly predictable process we've got now. My proposal is that voters will make a good-faith effort to pretend that the trial run is the real thing, and tell the candidate exactly what they would say if RFA were still being done the old way. If you change what's being offered, then people will have to completely rethink. That could be good or bad, but either way, the discussion would take longer; I was hoping for something that was easy to understand and easy to do on a trial basis. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

That seems like far too sensible an idea to have any chance of success WereSpielChequers. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

A good idea in theory, but then you have to remember there are the admins who start to "lose it" way after three months. I personally began to "lose it" well over a year into adminship. Majorly talk 18:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

(reply to Majorly). The problem that desysoping is for all practical purposes impossible except in the most egregious of cases. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Then you have people like me who, if they went through this process, would instantly break it. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 17:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I hate how "egregious" is now becoming the most used word in every discussion I visit.--Patton^t/c 23:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

What I hate is how the word "egregious" is becoming increasingly appropriate. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

If done right, this could be good, for the same reason that admin coaching is good if done right. Before running for adminship, candidates should take a long hard look at what's involved and what it means to be an admin. Good coaching helps him do that. This process could do the same. If a candidate basically said "I want to be an admin, what am I doing right, what am I doing wrong, and what am I simply not doing that an admin needs to do" then spend the next 3 months righting the wrongs and doing what he previously didn't do, that would not only help him decide if he wanted to be an admin, it would make him a better admin when he did get the bit, and would very likely make him a better editor. I know the self-study I've been doing the past few months has prevented some possible oop-sies and probably made be a better editor than if I just came in last fall and self-nominated. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

This is what Editor Review is supposed to achieve, but with much less drama. Not an idea I'd support. --Dweller (talk) 09:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I won't push this if people aren't interested, but there are two things about this proposal that distinguish it from current and recent proposals involving RFA:

• A voluntary process doesn't require anyone's approval. Anyone can stage a pretend-RFA, and anyone can show up for advice. Dweller says that's what ER is for, but if ER actually prepared people for RFA, you wouldn't have so many candidates who are surprised what happens during RFA. In most people's minds, that's not what ER is for.
• It actually has a chance of being supported by admins. A lot of admins don't participate at RFA, maybe because RFA is a lot of work, maybe because it's not considered politically savvy to be voting against people that you're going to have to work with daily, and certainly because many arguments they hear at RFA don't correspond to their notions of what makes a good admin. Admins have generally solidly resisted RFA proposals on the grounds that they would either create more drama or would give more focus or power to the RFA process; admins generally want less of both rather than more. (I'm not overstating this; read any of the last 10 threads on the subject at WP:AN.) This proposal is intended to reduce the drama at RFA by giving people a clue ahead of time, and to build in a feedback loop; any volunteers who want to do the pretend-RFA thing give the usual votes and opinions, then 3 months later, they compare what they said before, what people are saying in the real RFA, and whether their predictions were right. I understand that an advice-giving process inherently biases the system and you have to interpret what you see in that light, but that's always been true (WP:ER, coaching, etc). If someone at RFA wants to oppose, saying that the candidate has been on good behavior for 3 months since their pretend-RFA, but they were badly behaved before, and they think the previous bad behavior is a better indicator of what kind of admin the candidate would turn into, that's their right.

IMO the objections that people made can be addressed. I'm inviting anyone who wants to work on putting together a FAC with me to visit User:Dank55/PRFA, and if it turns out there would be a critical mass of volunteers willing to vote at pretend-RFAs, and potential candidates willing to show up, and general support from people on this page, then we'll move it to WP-space. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Alternatively, people could just stop being dicks in the opposition. Anyone who runs for RfA, but either hasn't been seen on this talk page before, or may have, at some point along the way disagreed with them about flagged revisions, or RfA standards is routinely flogged for no good reason. Half the opposition these days essentially declares candidates who did not work in {arbitrarily select any wikisomething space and insert here} grossly negligent terrorists hell bent on using the mop solely for malfeasance. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The one thing everyone agrees on at RFA is that decisions are being made (always by other people, of course :) without data or inconsistently, so that problem needs to be addressed before trying a pretend-RFA or pre-RFA (I'm calling it PRFA); otherwise, we'll get the same complaints about PRFA that we get about RFA, which will sink PRFA. I'll tackle the data problem in a new thread below. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The real, real problem with RfA

The real, real problem with RfA is that I didn't pass it, and would never pass it. Any system that rejects and demotivates exemplary editors like me is fundamentally flawed, as a matter of simple definition. Only half joking. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 18:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I passed it but then I failed it again. Does that mean I'm only half exemplary? :| -- Gurch (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

If Malleus had a better attitude towards other editors, he would certainly have passed RFA. As it is, he doesn't believe in the civility policy (his words). If only he could be a little more friendly and patient with those he disagrees with, and not so grumpy. Even I would support him if he made a turnaround. RFA is only broken until you or your friends pass it. Prior to his own RFA, Malleus rarely, if ever, contributed to this page. Now he is one of the highest contributing editors here on this page. What does that tell people? Majorly talk 18:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, both Malleus and Majorly have edited this page 595 times, tied for third most, according to this tool. I'm number 12 on the list. Useight (talk) 18:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

(reply to Majorly). Just ain't gonna happen. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Clearly, if you can't be civil then you have no need for the mop. ArcAngel (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Your logic appears to be faulty. Perhaps you meant something like "If you can't be civil then you don't deserve the mop"? Even then though, the logic is dubious ... --Malleus Fatuorum 23:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Clearly the path to exemplary-ness is more edits to this page. But I am only 108th :( -- Gurch (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I'm 22nd, and it's been ages since I posted here regularly - you people just aren't trying! (And, in keeping with Gurch's theory, I did pass my RfA unanimously. I did, however lose my RfAr 7 to 2...) --Tango (talk) 20:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

In what far-away universe does not believing in the the civility policy equate to being uncivil? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, you are extremely uncivil sometimes, so maybe that's a sign. Majorly talk 21:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

"Extremely" is POV. Or perhaps peacock language, depending on your viewpoint. You, on the other hand, are an example that we all ought to be aspiring to I suppose? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It is POV, but it's not POV that you are uncivil sometimes. You admit it yourself. And no, I wouldn't give myself as an example. Majorly talk 22:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Your logic is no better than your general demeanour. I have never admitted that I am uncivil at times. Indeed, if I had, then your point about me not believing in the ludicrous civility policy would have made no sense. It is certainly true though that my patience for what is clear idiocy is not unlimited. To that charge I will plead "guilty". --Malleus Fatuorum 22:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Your own unfriendly, angry and cynical demeanor is precisely why you aren't an admin, Malleus, and never will be. Hanging round this page saying "Oh, what an awful process this is, how wrong it was I wasn't promoted!" won't change anything. Majorly talk 22:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You may well be right. Nevertheless, it's important to hang around this page, or more importantly the article page, to do whatever I can to make sure that unsuitable candidates like yourself never again become administrators. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh but he is right Mal. You have been the only road block in the pursuit of your adminship. And zOMG a threat. Synergy 23:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Some mistake? I am not pursuing adminship, nor will I ever pursue adminship. The point of this topic, which seems to have escaped far too many, was to point out in (what I thought) was a humorous way why so many might be claiming that RfA is broken. I didn't really expect it to degenerate into another Malleus bashing episode. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I suppose you're right. I must be mistaken. You just spend so much time here and complain so much, I mistook that for you haven't gotten over it yet. And if my comment was "bashing" I'd hate to see when someone "actually" gets mad at you. Go cry abuse somewhere else, you'll get none from me. Synergy 23:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Synergy, try listening to yourself. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 00:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Quick Majorly, you need to make a post, I just looked and MF just overtook you for number 3 on the list! (I'm in the top ten, but surprisingly not the top five!)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 19:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I am third due to my other account Al tally. Majorly talk 21:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

you cheated! ROFLMAO---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 21:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that the toolserver is more likely to be accurate [1], and for me it certainly seems faster. Dragons flight (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

As of making this post, I just moved up a rank on the "Most edits to this page" ranking system. It's like a new and more fun form of editcountitis. --Deskana (talk) 20:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Just what Majorly wanted to hear---another reason to oppose "Oppose Isn't in the top 25 people who've edited Wikipedia Talk:Requests for Adminship!" ;-) ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 20:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Does this count as one of the "admin areas" that the hapless victims of RfA are recommended to frequent on pain of everlasting damnation? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be easier to defend it on an RfB. --Tango (talk) 21:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

At my RfB I was criticised by some for lack of edits here. On reflection, I think I should have been commended. --Dweller (talk) 09:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It is one of the areas that when I see coaches recommend they frequent that I cringe... it is a sign of coaching designed to pass the RfA. IMO, people who frequent WT:RFA and aren't admins actually find it harder to pass... especially, if they make their first edit here within their first 3 months on wikipedia.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 21:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't find it too hard - I made my first comment here a week before my 3 month anniversary... Majorly talk 21:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, my first edit to this page took place six months after I starting actively editing, nine months after creating the account. Guess I got off to a slow start. Useight (talk) 00:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Now 16 edits away from overtaking Useight... —kurykh 22:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I've created a monster! Useight (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, cool! I have 15 edits to my username (16 including this one). I did wait 3 months after I registered to post here, but I didn't know it was important to do that. Alack! I fear for my future prospects!! MUST...INSULT...MALLEUS...FAT-- Crystal whacker (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It's impossible to insult me, but if you want to give it a try, you'd better be wearing your very best flameproof underwear. And minus brownie points if you afterwards appeal to the lame civility policy. Do you feel lucky? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I just called you FAT Crystal whacker (talk) 00:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I am a liitle overweight, that's true. You may choose to call me fat if you like, so long as I'm allowed to call you ... well, no need to go there just yet. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 01:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh my god. I'm 9th on that list. I'm so ashamed. And Malleus, you're not fat. Your momma however....Keeper | 76 04:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

RfA candidate	S	O	N	S%	Ending	Dups?	Report
Malleus Fatuorum	OVER 9000	0	0	100%	25:50, 32 January 2009 (UTC)	possibly	report

(9001/-0/0); Scheduled to end 25:50, 32 January 2009 (UTC)

• Seventeen of my meatpuppets and thirteen of my sockpuppets are blocked, and so have been prevented from taking part in this RfA. I don't think that's fair. I've got loads left, so the result is in no danger, but there's a principle at stake here. Is it right that one adminisatrator should be allowed to block me 30 times? Isn't that some kind of conflict of interest, or even harrassment? --Malleus Fatuorum 03:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I had to do it!!! I was condemned for not exercising my adminly godlike powers at my RfB... need to get that admin editcountitis up...---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 07:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)PS, I think I got another of you 170+ sock puppets... IRC my ass... we know they are all Socks!---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 07:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Um, I don't know if you noticed, Balloonman, but among the 170 socks you blocked was User:Jimbo Wales. Well, I guess live and learn.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

He'll never notice, it's not as if our God-King contributes to the project anymo....

We lose more editors that way.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Support

Sewer rat

1. Support Malleus would make an excellent admin.... wait, is this the wrong area? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

   WHY?? BADGER BADGER BADGER. Majorly talk 01:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

   MUSHROOM MUSHROOM. seresin ( ¡? )  05:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

   There's a badger. Happy now, Majorly? Xclamation point 01:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

   Because the average admin cusses far more, is more aggressive, meaner, and far less caring about other's feelings than Malleus. That is the honest truth. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 01:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

2. Support, as the user is sarcastic. Great quality in an administrator! --Izno (talk) 01:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

   Malleus is clearly unable to distinguish between the "bad" behaviour of administrators and the BAD behaviour of regular editors. I think you should reconsider your vote. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

   Don't worry, Malleus, we've had a word with the closing crat. It's in the bag.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

   Relieved to hear. Bloody well cost enough. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

3. Support - If he's getting IRC, we might be able to get him into the Cabal ;) RockManQ (talk) 02:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC) Preceeding comment by VX! VX!^~~~~~

   Yes, I hear they are recruiting after they got caught in the crossfire between Sauron and the Dark One. Bad business, that.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

4. Support as one of the only editors left with common sense. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

   You or him?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

   Obviously not him; he's supporting Malleus! Giggy (talk) 03:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

   (ec)It's obvious, it has to be Malleus, because anybody who supports Malleus has to lack common sense ;-)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 03:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

   What Balloonman said. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 03:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

5. Strong Support per Julian---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 03:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

   Based upon the evidence presented below by Coren, change vote to strong support!---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 05:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

6. Support per myspace. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
7. And to think Majorly thought Rfa talk was useless support. EVula owes me a favor, I'll be sure he closes this one properly...Keeper | 76 04:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
8. Support Anything to break the gut-sucking ennui. Dlohcierekim 04:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
9. I think consensus is forming here Majorly talk 04:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
10. Keep; obviously not a living person so BLP doesn't apply. — Coren ^(talk) 04:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
11. I COULD NOT EDIT THE SUPPORT SECTION! PANIC!!!! support, per WP:3LA, WP:A3I, WP:GLYPH, WP:RSTLNE and WP:LETSGIVEITTOHIMSOTHATHEBLOCKSJIMBO. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 06:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
12. Anonymous approves this message! I heard that you needed a raid? - 14:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Thought he was one already. Since I find out he isn't, he's damn well gonna stay that way!--Wehwalt (talk) 00:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
2. Oppose - Per Malleus. Xclamation point 00:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
3. Oppose Malleus clearly has no interest in the daily argey-bargey of administrator life. He gets enough of that at home. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

   Comment it's slowing down. Let me go canvass about 200 users with some spam!--Wehwalt (talk) 02:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

   Let me do that, I'm activating my IRC account even as we speak. Just watch the supports come flooding in now. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

4. Oppose Strong oppose user has written a number of outstanding articles.--Patton^t/c 08:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

   is that number 1?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 08:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

   OMGZ U BADGERER CHAGING TO STRONG OPPOSE. Btw I don't know what your talking about.--Patton^t/c 08:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

   First it's preperation now it Chaging... don't they have spell check on these computers anymore??? :P---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 08:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

    Clerk note: Only admins have access to the spell check button.--Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 16:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

   LOL I have a tendency to type too fast.--Patton^t/c 11:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

5. Delete. User may have a sense of humor. That makes him far too dangerous. Should be banned immediately before he incites any more diversionary threads. That, and he failed to answer the standard questions... Dragons flight (talk) 17:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

   Waste of time. Nobody bothers to read the answers anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to be a spoilsport, but I respectfully suggest you guys archive this and move on. This seems to have run its course. Townlake (talk) 21:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - Proposal does not have 75% consensus. – iridescent 21:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support. The respect word has been deployed, time to get boring and serious again. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The really, really true problem with RfA

The really, really true problem with RfA is: it exists. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Another RfA talk thread

I thought looking at my oldest edit to this page was fairly interesting, and so I read the entire page. It's a really interesting snapshot of RFA history. The discussions are very similar to today, but it's interesting to see the attitudes displayed then. Some of the interesting threads are one on voting "sections", the location of the tally, the old RFA standards pages (since made historical), a link to a thread on young admin candidates, editcountitis on RFAs, "clutter" on RFAs, the 1000th admin and admin growth charts. Majorly talk 01:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA end time reminder

It's rather common to start an RfA nomination and then fill it out or wait for an acceptance then forget to update the ending time. Sometimes it's not a big deal like a couple hours, but many hours can get to be a problem. An RfA isn't active until it is listed on WP:RfA so 7 days after it is listed there is the correct ending time. I'm asking here so that some of the RfA regulars can help catch these more regularly. Thanks all. - Taxman ^Talk 02:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Why so serius? This is Rfa:talk. Keeper | 76 04:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks like a useful reminder to me. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 13:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll do my best not to let that type of egregious transgression occur again. :) It's just that it's a recurring issue and a number of people like to know what they can do to help. That's an easy and important one. - Taxman ^Talk 22:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Bot writer anyone? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems appropriate. - Taxman ^Talk 22:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I feel the end time should be updated to reflect 7 days from actual filing at RFA. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we mean the same thing. When I say listed on RfA, I mean the editing of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to include the link to the active nomination. I assume that's what you mean, no? - Taxman ^Talk 22:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Obviously. An RFA may well sit for some time if there are multiple nominators waiting to add their bit. It is up to the transcluder to adjust the end time. A bot may help, but it really is a minor thing. At the end of the day, if it is not done on transclusion it will be done very soon afterwards by one of the many many editors who "clerk" RFA. Pedro :  Chat  00:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

But the reason I brought it up is it is often not done and the uncorrected closing time rolls around as much as 24 hours before the correct one. You're right a couple hours is no big deal. A day may not be, but we have decided on 7 days as the time to gather consensus and we should at least be consistent. - Taxman ^Talk 12:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA Insight

To anyone who's interested - the RfA Review process has stalled at the moment. I've been tied up with a number of other things, and other project members seem to have drifted off. Suffice it to say, there is a huge set of feedback available, waiting for someone to sift through and process. I'd encourage anyone with an interest in the RfA process (either for or against reform) to have a look at the pages there, along with over 200 user reccomendations at Category:Wikipedian Recommendations to RfA Review. You may find that they help to generate a solid set of proposals with real community backing.

Best of luck, Gazimoff 21:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Just so you don't have to ...

Oh look, there are no candidates at either RfA or RfB (again). Is the world imploding? I haven't checked the news yet today; should I whitewash all of my windows and take the doors off their hinges? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

So what do you suggest? Nominate User:Example? Simon^KSK 23:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I expect all the good candidates have been scared away. Majorly talk 23:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Or, all the good candidates don't WANT to put up with the abuse known as RFA right now. ArcAngel (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest not worrying about it. There are too many administrators as it is. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 23:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Why would they be scared of such a nice place? And, Malleus, you're right. Too many admins. Some of them don't even deserve it. Simon^KSK 23:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

We had a nomination about 30 minutes ago; I can't work out if it was a joke or the user in question is about 12, one of the two. The problem is that any user who goes through the thing once (or hangs around here) never wants to touch it again, and those who don't hang around here are unlikely to reply to any requests for candidates made here. actually now that I think about it me and Ten Pound Hammer keep coming back like abused wives. Exceptions that prove the rule, I guess (as much as I hate that phrase). Ironholds (talk) 23:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It was closed 0-1-0, which was defensible (and the candidate seemed cool with it), but 0-1-0 seems quick to be closing, even when NOTNOW seems likely. Even NOTNOWs can allow wannabe-admins to get valuable advice from the community before they're shut down. Not criticizing the closer here, just one opinion. Townlake (talk) 00:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, my miserable slogging at CSD between 10:30 and 13:30 today getting rid of attack pages that had been hanging around for hours really indicates we have too many admins. Try - "we have too many inactive admins" and come back to me. Until then.... Pedro :  Chat  23:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, we need more. The problem is (and there is no way to rectify this without being unfair to candidates) that unlike Checkusers, Administrators are picked regardless of location. If you have 400 active admins, 300 of whom are in American timezones (massive generalisation and exaggeration, I know) then there are going to be 'blind spots' where admins are not online during certain hours/are but are doing something else. Ironholds (talk) 23:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Generalisation accepted, but also agreed on. UTC 10:00 sees the west coast Americans going to bed, the very late Australian contingency about to, our Indian / Middle East friends are few in number, and the Brits are at work. I edit from work, ('cause I can!) but I guarantee that there are far fewer active admins around then = Waggers, Redvers, Peter Symonds (now he's rejoined the evil cabal of deleting attack pages) are a few but it's not like 01:00 UTC by any stretch. I'm not proposing we bias towards timezone, but off hand "we have too many admins" comments are, well, wrong and frankly Malleus and SimonKSK would do well to put up evidence or shut up. I sat there deleting crap - you didn't - so show the evidence we have too many admins. Pedro :  Chat  00:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm a Brit who doesn't work or sleep (hint, hint :P). We shouldn't start selecting users by timezone, but perhaps we could start a drive to find good candidates who have slipped under the radar (the best kind, since turning up at ANI and places often is a bad sign rather than a good one) and do so through category searching. Look through Category:Users from India or something similar depending on the timezone required. It is as good a way to start as any, and trawling through every wikipedian would take so long. If we're going to search for decent candidates, we may as well search for those candidates who can do the greatest good if their request passes. Ironholds (talk) 00:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought you had the bit? Pedro :  Chat  00:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

People keep saying that; I don't know why. Maybe people think that with that many RfAs from one person one of them must have been successful by now :P. But no, I'm not an admin after five requests (two notnows, one almost-notnow, one dramahfest and one dramahfest where I broke even and got a barnstar from Balloonman). Ironholds (talk) 00:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Where is this myth that we have too many admins coming from? And SimonKSK, what does deserving it have to do with anything? Mind giving some names? I hear lots of "admin abuse" cries, but never any solid examples. Majorly talk 23:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we definitely do not need to have a list of examples here on this page. Avruch ^T 00:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

There aren't any names. People can cry "admin abuse" till the cows come home. The reality is, while there are some admins who aren't especially competent, our admins are all pretty decent, and the really bad ones are removed. Majorly talk 00:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

If RfA dies down a bit, you can always list my name as a backup. That will be sure to fill up seven days worth of drama. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Support posting an RfA for Ottava on the condition that it is moved to WP:ANI, where drama of that magnitude belongs :P. Ironholds (talk) 00:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Why don't they just give me my own subpage of WP:AN (does WP:AN/OR already exist? haha)? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you really as bad as Betacommand? :) Majorly talk 00:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Well he can still edit, so obviously not :P. Ironholds (talk) 00:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I am, after all, completely technologically inept, don't understand how to program, can't use a bot or any auto program, and prefer typewriters over processors. I think that is one of the few things that keeps me from being seen as a threat. I'm like a snail. Sure, I may be evil and stuff, but it would take me forever to do any actual harm. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 00:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

or there is Sceptre-style editing; your screwups cause just enough trouble to be brought to ANI but too much dramah for consensus over a block to be reached. Ironholds (talk) 00:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Unwaranted. Why bring another editor who rarely edits this page in recent times into this? Pedro :  Chat  00:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Pedro. I know Sceptre. He would never want to be compared to me. Haha. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 01:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, it was more a 'well if we're comparing drama styles by editor now..' comment than any attempt at causing disruption/drama. Ironholds (talk) 01:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Whose round is it now? Oh how I love going down to the Dog and Duck RFA talk page on a Friday night! Majorly talk 00:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a sad way to spend a Friday, but then I spent New Years Day playing an RPG with WP editors over IRC (so many abbreviations, so little time). Ironholds (talk) 01:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

If you need people to nominate, there is always WP:HOPEFUL where you can pick some willing candidates. I'm sure there are some you can nominate ;-) SoWhy 12:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

This page is now closed

Over the past few days, this discussion page has reached unprecedented levels of waffley irrelevant silliness, thus proving once and for all that it's completely pointless. Rather than fill another 100 archives with the same kind of junk as the last 100, the page is now closed. No further comments are to be made below the line. Thank you. -- Gurch (talk) 05:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

There's something strangely hilarious about this, but I don't know exactly what it is. bibliomaniac15 05:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The fact that you posted? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)}

Well, we could fill another 100 archives with "RfA is broken", "zomg ageism", and "zomg badgering". –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 05:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but that's what the first 150 archives were about. We should try something different for the next 150. Maybe anyone who actually cares about the process could go over to WP:RfA Review and help out collating there, and something solid might come out of it.--Aervanath (talk) 06:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

gurch i'm sure you've done this several times before. or is my memory failing me Tombomp (talk/contribs) 10:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

That's probably the point, isn't it? This talk page is all about repetetetition. --Deskana (talk) 12:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Gurch as a point, but he's missed it! We shouldn't simply be making archives based upon the time... but rather subject!! That's right, let's have an archive for "zomg ageism" another archive for "RFA is broken" another for "zomg badgerin" another for ...---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 13:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Archives by subject would be a great idea. User:NoSeptember started something a long time ago, but never really completed it. I started something offline but got too busy. I note above a topic from ~September 2006 about ageism. It would be interesting to see how attitude have changed (or otherwise). Majorly talk 14:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Does this mean no more RFAs ever? Damn... I was hoping for 2015. rootology (C)(T) 14:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it means this page is closed, not the actual RFA page itself. And whilst the page is getting some air, you ought to try now Rootology. Majorly talk 15:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

What, seriously? rootology (C)(T) 15:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)No, no. You can do it on the project page I think - just the talk page is closed. We can still write ridiculous stuff/repeat the same thing/whatever on the RFAs themselves, until someone closes that. The we'll come back here, and maybe we can continue all that on RFBs. No offense meant to anyone, just my stupid self kidding around ;D Chamal ^talk 15:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

No, no, I was kidding, I know RFA isn't closed. Majorly saying I should run is what I'm confuzeled on. rootology (C)(T) 15:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

But if this page is closed, the internets will explode! –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Just make it a redirect to Wikipedia:PEREN#Requests_for_Adminship_is_broken — Rlevse • Talk • 15:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

In all seriousness

It might not be a bad idea for somebody (with a lot of free time on their hands) to create a box at the top of the page that references the common discussions and asks people to refer to them before making the same suggestions over and over again.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 16:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't people just apply their powers of not reading to the box as well? :P delldot ∇. 16:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Then we can create a load of templates to direct them to the correct page, like we do at the help desk. But seriously, I think this is a good idea (if anyone is willing to do it). Chamal ^talk 16:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

How did they compile the indexes for the village pump?--Aervanath (talk) 08:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Guys, guys...

*sigh*... YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG -- Gurch (talk) 17:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh great Gurch, please enlighten us! :P SoWhy 22:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

His lack of reply is how to do it correctly. That's the enlightenment. Follow his ways, and don't reply to this message. Giggy (talk) 09:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. —kurykh 09:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Taking requests

Everyone agrees that decisions at RFA are being made (always by other people, of course :) without data, or inconsistently. I'm taking requests; which pages, spaces or categories that the candidate did or didn't contribute to are most important to you when you're voting? Before you say "It varies depending on the candidate" ... I don't have time available to give a comprehensive report on every RFA candidate, so I'll limit my search to a few standard pages or types of pages. I'm leveraging the fact that I've participated in enough RFAs that I have an idea which of the candidate's diffs are going to be significant to at least a few voters, but I'll be looking for feedback as I go; I'm happy to provide more or fewer diffs, depending on what you guys want. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• My baseline is 500+ edits to WP namespace, and, where the candidate mentions an intention of working on deletion, some deleted contributions (to show speedy experience). Stifle (talk) 17:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Erm, I don't agree actually. More data is bandied around about candidates now than in the past - for example, when I was promoted - and I do not think that this has necessarily improved the process or the quality of candidates being approved by it. It has been some four years since I went through the process - back then the only datum that ever really cropped up was total number of edits, now the complete statistics are provided on the talk page and candidates will be opposed for not editing enough in particular namespaces. I do not think that it is a given that the calibre of new promotions is improving because this greater range of data allows voters to weed out "bad" candidates. I think that your report may well prove to be helpful, but I disagree that the main flaw of RfA lies with the "lack" of data about candidates. Simply put I feel that a candidate is either acceptable or unacceptable, the number or range of their edits does not come into it. Rje (talk) 18:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I've got a list of links to some editors' RFA criteria on User:Davidwr/RFAs. Mine are there also. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

As that page shows, there is a varied list of criteria for each person - some not always the same as others. Getting peeps to agree on a standard for RFA would be pretty hard based on all the differing opinions on it. ArcAngel (talk) 18:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Rje. I do not think the extra data useful; to me, the most important quality is demeanor and ability to communicate effectively in a text-based environment. If the candidate demonstrate knowledge and commitment (really, any commitment: articles or WP space), then I will support him. On the other hand, if a candidate has that je ne sais quoi that leaves me uncomfortable, then I would likely abstain; or, if warranted, oppose (such as: cut 'n' paste copyright violations). The namespace breakdown doesn't do it for me. Neither do questions. I only care if they demonstrate that they would be willing to research their actions, be thoughtful, be courteous, and generally support the community. In other words: are they trustworthy. If an editor is mature, reasonable, intelligent, and upholds our principles; then, he should be promoted. Lazulilasher (talk) 19:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Lazulilasher. Decisions made without data? I couldn't imagine more data being available to anyone who wants to look at it. As to the charge of inconsistency, of course decisions will be inconsistent when the issue is one of trust. A lot of that is going to be on assessment of the total person, not just on a set of numbers. Dean B (talk) 22:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Try this, and this. - Mailer Diablo 22:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

What will get a bad response is if people "volunteer" their own favorite type of information for every candidate in some kind of heavy-handed way, so what I'm asking is: what's the community consensus on what kind of information is always welcome? Reading all the links above and judging from past RFAs, I'd say we have consensus that requests for and use of tools is always considered relevant; does this sound right? (Rights are granted at WP:PERM for Rollback, Account creator, New Page Watcher and AutoWikiBrowser.) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I think *fd edits would be useful too - although, obviously, the nature of these edits is more important than the number. I generally find that contributions in these areas are a good indicator of a candidate's policy knowledge and ability to play nice with others. Linking to a candidate's contributions to these discussions may be very helpful in RfA. Rje (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that's right, but I suck at XfD. I hope someone will provide this information. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

In cases where expertise on XfD is considered as the primary reason for RfA, it is usually indicated so by the nominator with links to a few example of his/her best performance. More than often, editors who object to the candidacy or question the candidate's proficiency XfDs would bring it up with a few XfDs cited as examples. - Mailer Diablo 15:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/Foxy Loxy

This is a notification to all interested parties that I have accepted a nomination to join the Bot Approvals Group - the above link should take you to the discussion. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 03:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It's already been closed. Dean B (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Watching Manchester United thrash Spurs 2–1, and then it struck me

The fundamental problem with the present system is that administrators are allowed to be both players and referees in the same game. Potential administrators going through RfA perhaps ought to be explicitly asked to agree that they will not use their tools in any dispute they themselves have become involved in, and will immediately stand down if found to have done so. OK, I know I'm dreaming. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) That was a depressing result :( ....sorry but that came over as a non-sequitur, how are teh two observations related? Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Having the referees on the same side as the players has worked well enough for Man U for ten years. 92.11.217.44 (talk) 19:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

But at least the referee has the decency to wear a different coloured shirt from the players, not pretend to be one of them. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

We could start a wiki-petiton to have that solidified as part of the RfA process. What's the worst that could happen, everybody says no and we go on with our day?--Koji† 19:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I like the concept of temporarily stripping admins of sysop status for inappropriate actions. Repeat offenders should be permanently de-sysopped. Majoreditor (talk) 19:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed... I would love to see a system where we could block sysop powers for a period of time (making a week block from sysop power the equivallency to a day for a routine block.)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 20:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Um, I thought that was the rule already. Most admin policies I've read used the term "uninvolved administrators may..." or "... should be done by an uninvolved administrator..." or "except when the action is non controversial, ... should be done by an uninvolved administrator." I see nothing wrong with admins using tools on disputes they are involved in if both policy and an all-but-one-editor mega-consensus is on their side, such as reverting vandalism. If this is a real problem, then an admin guideline or admin essay describing when it's okay for an admin to use the tools on articles or against editors in which he's an editor or a party to a dispute should be written. If I were to write such an essay, it would boil down to this:

• An admin may use the tools on pages he is involved with for non-controversial, non-disputed actions, such as handling normal vandalism, blocking unauthorized bots, enforcing ARBCOM sanctions, routine maintenance, and the like. He may use them on controversial or disputed actions or in ways that affect editors he is in a dispute with only in an emergency, that is, when there is not enough time to wait for an uninvolved administrator to act. Examples include very-short-term blocks of authorized bots where an uninvolved editor would almost certainly extend the block, very-short-term protection pages that are under rapid-fire edit wars where an uninvolved editor would almost certainly extend the protection, very-short-term blocks of rapid-fire disruptive editors where an uninvolved editor is almost certain to extend the block, and the like. "Very short term" means just long enough to get an uninvolved administrator's attention, typically well under 1 hour, probably under 10 minutes. Before "declaring an emergency" ask yourself "what's the worst thing that could happen if I wasn't an admin?" When in doubt, don't use the tools, wait for an uninvolved administrator.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I've made this remark before, to Malleus as it happens. Deeply unpopular though it may be, but the thought does occur that the very best admins would be non content writers. There seems to be a common mantra that "only article writers understand article writers" without any actual proof of this. To me, the very best admins potentially would be those that don't give a damn about ..... nazis, Israel, homosexuals, polygamy, communism, if Ireland is part of Great Britain, Pakistan, Poland, Native Americans, what colour stilton is etc. etc. etc. Again, an unpopular view I'm sure but just as grounded in fact that writing encyclopedia articles = can handle a block button. Pedro :  Chat  20:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

But as it stands right now, some of our best content writers are also admins. I don't think that anyone is seriously considering not allowing admins to be content builders. Hence, we're always going to have circumstances where admins are a party to editing disputes. Majoreditor (talk) 21:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Question for Balloonman. You wrote above that you "would love to see a system where we could block sysop powers for a period of time (making a week block from sysop power the equivallency to a day for a routine block.)" The idea has merit. Can you flesh out how such a temporary sysop block might function? Who would make the decision and how? Majoreditor (talk) 21:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Therein lies the challenge. I'm not sure about the execution of said proposal. I don't think we could put it in the hands of admins... but what we might do is have something on ANI, wherein the community could quickly agree that the tools were abused, and notify a board like 3RR, wherein a 'crat/stewart would be able to implement a short term block based upon the recommendation at ANI. (This is just a throwing out a thought, it is not developed, just a possibility. I am in favor of any means to A) actually get a means to deal with rogue admins and B) make the bit less of a big deal.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 21:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Pedantically, 2–1 is hardly a thrashing. :D Garden. 21:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The block button is rather unusual in the administrator's armoury, in that it's perhaps the the only tool where lack of experience of article writing is not an impediment to its use. It's also unusual in that it's the only tool which candidates are obviously unable to show any experience in the use of. Combined with the damage that it can cause when unreasonably deployed against hard-working and well meaning content builders that makes it very dangerous indeed. Far too dangerous, in fact, to be handed out to administrators. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone did once suggest a way round the "unable to get block experience" problem. Nobody seemed to like it. Actually, I'd disagree with you that a lack of article experience is no impediment to using the block button; I think part of the problem with overzealous civility blocks stems from certain admins (by no means all) forgetting how frustrating getting your article deleted/having inaccuracies repeatedly added to an article you're working on/petty MOS nitpicking can be, and not making allowances for the occasional outburst of frustration. – iridescent 21:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't "do" blocks for incivility. I do blocks for vandalism. I do protections when blocks are not the best option. I do deletions when I see attacks, copyright infringements, tests, nonsense and blatantly obvious promotion. I've yet to see a convincing argument - no strike that - I've yet to see any argument that those tasks require the ability to write glorious prose as well. Pedro :  Chat  21:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, easy to lose track of that, especially when these users are new and no idea how to complain constructively, vis a vis talkpages. Garden. 21:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a fair point Pedro. I guess my view is coloured by my history of having been on the receiving end of a couple of (what I felt were) inappropriate civility blocks. I'd also guess that I'm not the only one who's been punished in that way, even though punishment is not meant to be the purpose of a block. So to that extent my point still stands. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Blocks are not punishment. Blocks are protection. I'm not going in to your blocks Malleus, but yes civilty blocks do seem to be both pointless and punishing not preventative. However, I still argue that none of my list of actions above requires the ability to string three words together (except "you are blocked"!), let alone brilliant prose. It does, however, require WP:CLUE - the fact that the community seems to associate writing words with diplomacy (one hopes), good judgement and general awareness baffles me. I think we blind sight oursleves into

• "good writer = good wikipedian = good admin". That's wrong.
• "sensible person = sensible person" is the only metric I need.

Writing articles may demonstrate one is sensible. But it is not the be-all and end all. Well, not for me. Pedro :  Chat  22:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Writing articles is only one part of the equation though. A great many of us plebians spend too much of our time protecting articles, by reviewing amendments and rolling back and/or undoing when necessary, and engaging in any subsequent talk page discussions. Why is that given no weight when judging whether a candidate has demonstrated sufficient experience in "admin related areas"? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh. I thought it was. BTW a great many of us plebian admins spend a lot of time "rolling back and/or undoing when necessary, and engaging in any subsequent talk page discussions". Pedro :  Chat  23:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I have an excellent way to determine someone's temperament and suitability for adminship. Get them to submit something to FAR. If they refuse because it is a slaughterhouse, they are appropriately sensible and deserve the tools. If they submit something and get through it without biting someone's head off they get boosted straight to 'crat. Ironholds (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)-

Damn, I couldn't even get Carroll Pickett to GA, something about not enough reliable sources mumble mumble groan groan. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't need to read the review to be able to tell you why that fails to meet the GA criteria on so many different levels. Why haven't you improved it? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Improving it as much as possible is on my to-do list. My mumble mumble was because of one fatal flaw that will keep it out of GA: While the person meets WP:N, there are simply not enough different sources to meet GA. Well, at least not if the reviewer was correct. Until or unless the person goes on another publicity tour or otherwise makes press, even at its best it will be a "missed it by that much" article. As to why I haven't worked in the changes from the review, it's on my to-do list. The main reason I made the comment here in the first place was sort of as a joke reply to Ironholds. Obviously, that attempt at humor went nowhere. Well, that, and the secret plot to get at least one other editor to look at the article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Trust me. Sourceing is the least of that article's problems. But why are we talking about that here? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeeed. You're straying dangerously close to having a productive conversation on WT:RFA. as you can see from the rest of this page, that is prohibited -- Gurch (talk) 16:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

nomination

i want to put my username in for nomination, and i have done all the steps, but when i go to edit the Rfa list, it wont let me, saying it's semi-protected. please help Vik0z0z (talk) 20:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It's protected to prevent people from running who have no experience, please review wp:NOTNOW.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 20:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec'd by BM) I'd suggest reading WP:NOTNOW. You simply won't pass at this time. I can delete your request if it helps. Sorry to seem harsh - the notnow page has some useful links. Pedro :  Chat  20:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

So that's why it never let me add my name. I thought it just had some sort of "jerk filter". :) Ottava Rima (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and welcome to Wikipedia! davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently we need a version of {{welcome}} that includes the phrase "please don't run for admin just yet" :-( SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

We need a version of {{welcome}} that says "nooooo don't do it, run away while you still can" -- Gurch (talk) 16:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

For the record, the nomination was created in the mainspace at Vik0z0z and deleted as a test page. Stifle (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Recent RfAs exceed 100 supports

It looks like some of the last few RfAs have had over 100 support votes (PeterSymonds 2, GrahamColm, Climie.ca and even Rootology). Is this because these candidates are well-known around Wikipedia or other projects, or because lots of users are paying attention to RFA? SF3 ^(talk!) 20:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about Climie.ca, but the other three are (were) probably the three highest profile non-admins on the project after SandyGeorgia. – iridescent 20:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)